Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 4, 2013

When Investment Arbitration Curbs Domestic Regulatory Space: Consistent Solutions through Amicus Curiae Submissions by Regional Organisations

Ciaran Cross and Christian Schliemann-Radbruch

Abstract

To date, African states have been called before 62 tribunals of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); 26 cases are pending. Recently, foreign investors have invoked Bilateral Investment Treaty provisions to challenge legislation aimed at addressing historical inequalities in the distribution of natural resources in Southern Africa (Funnekotter, Piero Foresti, Border Timbers). This tension between the right to property as international investment law’s origin and other rights protected by national regulation raises the question of applicable law in investor-state arbitration. The principle of “systemic integration” expressed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires arbitrators to have regard for the disputing parties’ other relevant obligations under international law, including human rights. Such considerations are often paramount to the determination of whether expropriations are arbitrary, discriminatory, or pursued in good faith for a public purpose. In practice, however, decisions by ICSID tribunals are far from consistent in this respect. Attempts to address this through submissions made by non-disputing parties acting as amicus curiae have produced mixed results (Biwater, Border Timbers). As questions remain concerning the harmonisation of these parallel regimes, an environment of legal uncertainty is emerging which impacts negatively on local populations and investors, both current and potential. This paper argues that since the admission of the EU Commission as amicus curiae in AES v. Hungary, the door has opened for regional organisations like the Southern African Development Community to participate actively in ICSID arbitrations. This may provide an enhanced opportunity to counteract the effects of a legal regime that promotes economic and political subordination to investors and investor-states, by introducing into investment law a perspective that reflects the particular circumstances of post-colonial economies.

References

Anaya, J. and R.A.Williams Jr., The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, 14Harvard Human Rights Journal (2001).Search in Google Scholar

Anghie,A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Search in Google Scholar

Anghie, A., The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities, 27Third World Quarterly, no. 5 (Reshaping Justice: International Law and the Third World 2006).Search in Google Scholar

Barelli, M., The Role of Soft Law in the International Legal System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 58International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 4 (2009).Search in Google Scholar

Bartholomeusz, L., The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals, 5Non-State Actors and International Law (2005).Search in Google Scholar

Bedjaoui, M., Towards a New International Economic Order (Paris: Holmes & Meier, 1979).Search in Google Scholar

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Hoffmann, R.T., The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II) (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012).Search in Google Scholar

Brickhill, J. and M.Du Plessis, Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Public Interest Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration (Piero Foresti v. South Africa), 27South African Journal on Human Rights (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Brower, C.N., A Crisis of Legitimacy, National Law Journal (7 October 2002).Search in Google Scholar

Brower, C.N., C.H.Brower II and K.J.Sharpe, The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication, 19Arbitration International, no. 415 (2003).Search in Google Scholar

Brower, C.N. and S.Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?9Chicago Journal of International Law (2009).Search in Google Scholar

Burke-White, W. and A.Von Staden, “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations”, in S. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Dolzer, R., The Impact of International Investment Treaties on Domestic Administrative Law, 37Journal of International Law & Politics (2005).Search in Google Scholar

Eberhardt, P. and C.Olivet, Profiting from Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom (Corporate Europe Observatory/Transnational Institute, 2012).Search in Google Scholar

Fach-Gomez, K., Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favourably for the Public Interest, 35Fordham International Law Journal (2011–2012).Search in Google Scholar

Francioni, F., Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law, 20European Journal of International Law (2009).Search in Google Scholar

Franck, S.D., The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions, 73Fordham Law Review, no. 1521 (2005).Search in Google Scholar

Gathii, J.T., “Third World Approaches to International Economic Governance”, in R. Falk, B. Rajagopal and J. Stevens (eds.), International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008).Search in Google Scholar

Gathii, J.T., War, Commerce and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Gathii, J.T., African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Search in Google Scholar

Kingsbury, B. and S.Schill, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law (New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-46, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Knahr, C. and A.Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration – The Biwater Gauff Compromise, 6The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2007).Search in Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, M., Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN-Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006).Search in Google Scholar

Levine, E., Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation, 29Berkeley Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Muchlinski, P., “Corporate Social Responsibility”, in P. Muchlinski (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).Search in Google Scholar

Mutua, M., What Is TWAIL?94ASIL Proceedings, no. 31 (2000).Search in Google Scholar

Ndlovu, P.N., Campbell v. Republic of Zimbabwe: A Moment of Truth for the SADC Tribunal, 1SADC Law Journal (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Peterson, L.E. and R.Garland, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Land Reform in Southern Africa (Montreal: Rights & Democracy, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Peterson, L.E. and K.R.Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2003).Search in Google Scholar

Reiner, C. and C.Schreuer, “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration”, in P.M. Dupuy, F. Francioni and E.U. Petersmann (eds.), Human Rights in Intenational Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Salacuse, J.W., Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Schill, S., Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Schneiderman, D., Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Search in Google Scholar

Simma, B., Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights?60International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 3 (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Simma, B. and T.Kill, “Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology”, in C. Binder et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Search in Google Scholar

Sornarajah, M., The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Sornarajah, M., Mutations of Neo-Liberalism in International Investment Law, 3Trade Law & Development (2011).Search in Google Scholar

Van Harten, G., The Public-Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims Against the State, 56International and Comparitive Law Quarterly (2007).Search in Google Scholar

Van Harten, G., Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion, 2Trade Law & Development, no. 1 (2010).Search in Google Scholar

Van Harten, G., Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 50Osgoode Hall Law Journal (2012).Search in Google Scholar

Van Harten, G. and M.Loughlin, Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, 17European Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2006).Search in Google Scholar

Vandevelde, K.J., Bilateral Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

Waelde, T. and S.Dow, Treaties and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Investment: The Effectiveness of International Law Disciplines versus Sanctions by Global Markets in Reducing the Political and Regulatory Risk for Private Infrastructure Investment, 34Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2000).Search in Google Scholar

Waibel, M., et al. (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010).Search in Google Scholar

  1. 1

    AES Summit Generation Limited and AES Tisza Erömü Kft. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award of 23 September 2010, para. 3.22.

  2. 2

    C.N. Brower, C.H. Brower II and J.K. Sharpe, The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication, 19 Arbitration International, no. 415 (2003); L.E. Peterson and K.R. Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration (2003), available at: <www.iisd.org/pdf/2003/investment_int_hum_rights_bits.pdf>, accessed 31 January 2013; M. Waibel, A. Kaushal, L. Kyo-Hwa Chung and C. Balchin (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010); S.D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham Law Review, no. 1521 (2005).

  3. 3

    UNCTAD, IIA Issue Note, April 2012, p. 1, available at: <www.unctad.org/diae>, accessed 31 January 2013. The 46 cases registered in 2011 constitute the highest number of known treaty-based disputes ever filed in 1 year.

  4. 4

    International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case Statistics, available at: <www.icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ListCases>, accessed 31 January 2013.

  5. 5

    G. Van Harten, Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (2012), available at: <www.ssrn.com>, accessed 31 January 2013.

  6. 6

    Peterson and Gray (2003), supra note 2; C. Reiner and C. Schreuer “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration”, in P.M. Dupuy, F. Francioni and E.U. Petersmann (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 82 et seq.

  7. 7

    Piero Foresti et al v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1; Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe and Border Timbers Limited, Border Timbers International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co. (Private) Limited v. Republic of Zimbabwe, Joint ICSID Cases No. ARB/10/15 and ARB/10/25.

  8. 8

    Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (J. Ruggie): ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, UN-Doc.A/HRC/17/31, Principles 9 and 10.

  9. 9

    UNCTAD, IIA Issues Note: What States Can Do, December 2012, p. 1, available at: <www.unctad.org/diae>, accessed 31 January 2013.

  10. 10

    M. Mutua, What Is TWAIL?, 94 ASIL Proceedings, no. 31 (2000).

  11. 11

    A. Anghie, The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities, 27 Third World Quarterly, no. 5 (Reshaping Justice: International Law and the Third World, 2006), 739.

  12. 12

    The jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals provides fertile ground to identify what J.T. Gathii identifies as Regime Bias: this approach traces adverse outcomes for Third World countries in the way in which the “rules of international trade, commerce and investment are crafted, applied and adjudicated between Third World and developed countries or between Third World countries and the interests of international capital.” See J.T. Gathii, “Third World Approaches to International Economic Governance”, in R. Falk, B. Rajagopal and J. Stevens (eds.), International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008), p. 261 et seq.

  13. 13

    A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); J.T. Gathii, War, Commerce and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); G. Van Harten, Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion, 2 Trade Law & Development, no. 1 (2010); M. Bedjaoui Towards a New International Economic Order (Paris: Holmes & Meier, 1979); M. Sornarajah, Mutations of Neo-Liberalism in International Investment Law, 3 Trade Law & Development, no. 206 (2011); M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

  14. 14

    K.J. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 19-20.

  15. 15
  16. 16

    Sornarajah (2010), supra note 13, p. 20; Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 19-20.

  17. 17

    J.W. Salacuse, Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 82.

  18. 18

    Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 29-30.

  19. 19

    Gathii (2010), supra note 13, pp. 145-190.

  20. 20

    Charter of the United Nations, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, Articles 2(4) and 51.

  21. 21

    Among others, the International Law Commission and the International Chamber of Commerce developed draft multilateral agreements and proposals were put before the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. None were adopted. Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 53-54.

  22. 22

    Ibid, p. 78.

  23. 23

    UNCTAD, Research and Policy Analysis, available at: <www.unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/International%20Investment%20Agreements%20%28IIA%29/Research-and-Policy-Analysis.aspx>, accessed 14 February 2013.

  24. 24

    K. Daele and M. de Reya (2012), Africa’s Track Record in ICSID Proceedings, available at: <http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/05/30/africa%E2%80%99s-track-record-in-icsid-proceedings/>, accessed 10 February 2013.

  25. 25

    Despite massive Chinese investment in Africa not one reported claim has been initiated under ICSID by a Chinese investor (Daele and Reya (2012), Ibid.) Gathii notes that frequent critical accounts of Chinese investment in Africa have “tended to privilege seeing Africa’s external relations from the perspective of a continent that must necessarily pursue relations based on a particular development model promoted by Western donors, that the Chinese do not buy into.” See J.T. Gathii, African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 366; see also F. Crouigneau and R. Hiault, Wolfowitz slams China banks on Africa lending, available at: <www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45e594e0-62fc-11db-8faa-0000779e2340.html#axzz2I9qnXTqD>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  26. 26

    Gathii (2010), supra note 13, p. 146.

  27. 27

    Ibid, pp. 145-190. See also, Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14.

  28. 28

    Bedjaoui (1979), supra note 13.

  29. 29

    Such is implicit in the language of classic BITs. The United Kingdom, for example, concluded BITs with, inter alia, Cameroon (1982), South Africa (1994), Zimbabwe (1995), Côte d’Ivoire (1995) and Kenya (1999). Each BIT is entitled “Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, accords the UK (the capital-exporting state) first priority of named contracting parties and is couched in identical terminology. The UK advocated the creation of these treaties and in doing so articulated what would be the benefit of signing (and the disadvantage of not signing) to potential treaty partners. A comprehensive database of BITs is available at: <www.unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/International%20Investment%20Agreements%20%28IIA%29/IIA-Tools.aspx>, accessed 14 February 2013. See also R. Dolzer, The Impact of International Investment Treaties on Domestic Administrative Law, 37 Journal of International Law & Politics (2005), 254-255.

  30. 30

    Anghie details how, in Vitoria’s juridical texts, “an apparently benevolent approach of including the aberrant Indian within a universal order is then a basis for sanctioning and transforming the Indian.” Anghie (2006), supra note 11, pp. 741, 744.

  31. 31

    Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, pp. 30-31.

  32. 32

    UNCTAD, supra note 23. By the end of 2011, UNCTAD report that “the IIA universe consisted of more than 3,100 agreements, including more than 2,860 BITs and 330 ‘other IIAs’ (e.g. free trade agreements or economic partnership agreements with investment provisions).”

  33. 33

    Although Article 26 of the ICSID Convention permits states to reserve right to impose such a requirement, in practice few states have done so. Notably Guatemala notified ICSID in 2003 that it intended this to be a condition of consent to arbitration under the Convention. See P. Muchlinski, “Corporate Social Responsibility”, in P. Muchlinski (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 1026.

  34. 34

    T. Waelde and S. Dow, Treaties and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Investment: The Effectiveness of International Law Disciplines versus Sanctions by Global Markets in Reducing the Political and Regulatory Risk for Private Infrastructure Investment, 34 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2000), 45.

  35. 35

    Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 55.

  36. 36

    Peterson and Gray (2003), supra note 2, p.7.

  37. 37

    W. Burke-White and A. von Staden, “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations”, in S. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 691; G. Van Harten and M. Loughlin, Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2006), 121-150.

  38. 38

    B. Kingsbury and S. Schill, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law (New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-46, 2009), p. 50, available at: <www.ssrn.com>.

  39. 39

    Ibid.

  40. 40

    C.N. Brower, A Crisis of Legitimacy, National Law Journal (7 October 2002), p. 1.

  41. 41

    Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 36.

  42. 42

    Kingsbury and Schill (2009), supra note 38, pp. 2, 44.

  43. 43

    Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 694, citing the cases of CMS Gas Transmission Co v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 324; LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, paras. 201-266; Continental Casualty Co v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008, paras. 160-236.

  44. 44

    C.N. Brower and S. Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? 9 Chicago Journal of International Law (2009), 477.

  45. 45

    S. Schill, Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 242-244.

  46. 46

    F. Francioni, Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law, 20 European Journal of International Law (2009), 732.

  47. 47

    Art. 35 (1), European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 222; Art. 62 (3) American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123; Art. 50 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, 21 I.L.M. 58; Art. 52 (b) International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

  48. 48

    Aguas Del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, para. 332.

  49. 49

    Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 34; G. van Harten, The Public-Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims Against the State, 56 International and Comparitive Law Quarterly (2007), 371.

  50. 50

    L. Johnson, Case Note: How Chevron v. Ecuador is Pushing the Boundaries of Arbitral Authority, available at: <http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/case-note-how-chevron-v-ecuador-is-pushing-the-boundaries-of-arbitral-authority/#_ftn1>, accessed 31 January 2013.

  51. 51

    Chevron Corporation and Texaco PetroleumCompany v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23), Second Interim Award on Interim Measures, 16 February 2012, para. 3.

  52. 52

    Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23), Fourth Interim Award on Interim Measures, 7 February 2013.

  53. 53

    P. Eberhardt and C. Olivet, Profiting from Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom (Corporate Europe Observatory/Transnational Institute, 2012), p. 15.

  54. 54

    UNCTAD, supra note 23.

  55. 55

    Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Award, 4 August 2010, para. 96.

  56. 56

    J. Brickhill and M. Du Plessis, Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Public Interest Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration (Piero Foresti v. South Africa), 27 South African Journal on Human Rights (2011), 165; See also, D. Schneiderman, Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 155: “[T]he prospects are that any number of [foreign] investor disputes could render BEE fiscally unsustainable.”.

  57. 57

    S. Ripinksy, Venezuela’s Withdrawal from ICSID: What It Does and Does Not Achieve, available at: <www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/venezuelas-withdrawal-from-icsid-what-it-does-and-does-not-achieve/>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  58. 58

    IA Reporter, United States Defeats Ecuador’s State-to-State Arbitration; Will Outcome Dissuade Argentine Copycat Case? available at: <http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120903_3>, accessed 31 January 2013.

  59. 59

    L. Ensor, New Law to Deal with Compensating Foreign Investors for Expropriation, available at: <http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/02/15/new-law-to-deal-with-compensating-foreign-investors-for-expropriation>, accessed 19 February 2013.

  60. 60

    SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template and Commentary (SADC, 2012), available at: <www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SADC-Model-BIT-Template-Final.pdf&sa=U&ei=QHEeUY7vN87Psga83oG4Ag&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEtrLwZey3Puqul2DuF86_9vT6WxQ>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  61. 61

    Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 56.

  62. 62

    J. Marias, South Africa, European Union Lock Horns, available at: <http://www.bdlive.co.za/businesstimes/2012/09/23/south-africa-european-union-lock-horns>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  63. 63

    Recently, the energy company Vattenfall brought two ICSID cases against Germany. In 2009, Vattenfall sought over €1billion in damages from Germany for the imposition of stricter environmental regulations on its coal-fired power plant. A second case continues challenging Germany’s nuclear phase-out policy. Greenpeace unsuccessfully attempted to use Germany’s OECD National Contact Point to challenge Vattenfall’s first ICSID complaint, claiming that the complaint undermined German environmental law. See N. Bernasconi-Osterwalder and R.T. Hoffmann, The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II) (IISD, 2012); Beschwerde nach den OECD Leitsätzen für multinationale Unternehmen gegen die Gesellschaften Vattenfall AB et al., October 2009, p. 12, available at: <www.oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_170>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  64. 64

    Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principle 17; OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Recommendations for Responsible Business Conduct in a Global Context, 25 May 2011, Part I. Chap. IV Human Rights, No. 5.

  65. 65

    Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principle 11 and Commentary.

  66. 66

    OECD Guidelines, supra note 64, Part I. Chap. II. General Policies A, No. 1, 2.

  67. 67

    MTD Equity v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004, para. 178; Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001, para. 345; Muchlinski (2008), supra note 33, pp. 637-687; P. Muchlinski, “Caveat Investor”? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor Under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006), 527-588.

  68. 68

    Muchlinski (2008), supra note 33, p. 683.

  69. 69

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petition from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001.

  70. 70

    NAFTA, Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing Party Participation, 7 October 2003, available at: <www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Nondisputing-en.pdf>, accessed 10 February 2013.

  71. 71

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, 19 May 2005.

  72. 72

    ICSID Convention, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, Rule 37 (2) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, Art. 41 (3) Additional Facility Rules, Schedule C, Arbitration.

  73. 73

    UNCITRAL, Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation), Settlement of Commercial Disputes: Preparation of a Legal Standard on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.169, Art. 5, para. 35.

  74. 74

    For a comprehensive list of cases featuring amicus petitions, see K. Fach-Gomez, Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favourably for the Public Interest, 35 Fordham International Law Journal (2011–2012), 510-564.

  75. 75

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Petition for Amicus Curiae Status, 27 November 2006, p. 2.

  76. 76

    Methanex, supra note 69, para. 42; Biwater, supra note 75, Procedural Order No. 5, 2 February 2007, para. 71.

  77. 77

    Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Public Hearing, available at: <https://icsid.worldbank.org>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  78. 78

    ICSID Convention, supra note 72. Regulation 22(1) ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations.

  79. 79

    See the analysis of the relevant norms in Biwater, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, paras. 121-132. The tribunal discusses whether the parties are free to publicize different arbitral documents. Also see C. Knahr and A. Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration – The Biwater Gauff Compromise, 6 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2007), 97-118.

  80. 80

    Ibid, para. 121. In Methanex access to documents was denied as there was a specific agreement by the parties not to disclose information. Methanex, supra note 69, para. 46.

  81. 81

    ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Rule 48(4) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings.

  82. 82

    ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Regulation 22 (2) Administrative and Financial Regulations.

  83. 83

    Suez, supra note 71. Order in response to a petition by five non-governmental organizations for permission to make an amicus curiae submission, 12 February 2007, para. 24.

  84. 84

    Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Letter of the Tribunal to the petitioners 20 May 2009, p. 1; Award, para. 28.

  85. 85

    Glamis Gold Ltd. V. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 6, 15 October 2005, paras. 11-12.

  86. 86

    Biwater, supra note 76, para. 65; Suez, supra note 84, para. 24.

  87. 87

    AES Summit, supra note 1, para. 3.22.

  88. 88

    ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Rule 37(2) ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings and Rule. 41(3) Additional Facility Rules; NAFTA Free Trade Commission Statement, supra note 70; Current Draft of UNCITRAL, Working Group II, supra note 73.

  89. 89

    Glamis Gold, supra note 85, Award, 8 June 2009, para. 269; Pacific Rim, supra note 77, Procedural Order No. 8, para. IV; Suez, supra note 84, para. 26; United Parcel Service of America Inc. V. Government of Canada, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amici Curiae, 17 October 2001, para. 69.

  90. 90

    United Parcel, supra note 89, para. 69; Suez, supra note 83, paras. 21, 27; Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 59-60; Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Order in Response to Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, 17 March 2006, para. 15; Methanex, supra note 69, paras. 36-37. See on substantive impact also: UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-fifth session, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/736, para. 77.

  91. 91

    Apotex Inc V. The Government of the United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2 on the Participation of a Non-Disputing Party, 11 October 2011, para. 23.

  92. 92

    Methanex, supra note 69, para. 38.

  93. 93

    UNCITRAL, Working Group II, supra note 73, Art. 5 (2), para. 35; NAFTA Statement of the Free Trade Commission, supra note 70, para. 2 (c)-(e); Aguas Provinciales, supra note 90, paras. 24, 29, 32.

  94. 94

    Aguas Provinciales, supra note 90, para. 30; Suez, supra note 84, para. 15.

  95. 95

    United Parcel, supra note 89, Amicus Submission of the US Chamber of Commerce of 20 October 2005, p. 4, para. 9.

  96. 96

    UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/760, para. 49-51.

  97. 97

    United Parcel, supra note 95, p. 1, para. 4 and pp. 4-5, para. 9.

  98. 98

    Biwater, supra note 76, p. 3.

  99. 99

    Von Pezold, supra note 7, Procedural Order No. 2, 26 June 2012, paras. 55-56.

  100. 100

    Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 51-53; Methanex, supra note 69, para. 49.

  101. 101

    L. Bartholomeusz, The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals, 5 Non-State Actors and International Law (2005), 209-286, at p. 241.

  102. 102

    Suez, supra note 71, para. 20.

  103. 103

    Glamis Gold, supra note 85, Non-Party Supplemental Submission of the Quechan Indian Nation, 16 October 2006; Decision on Application and Submission by Quechan Indian Nation, 16 December 2005.

  104. 104

    United Parcel, supra note 89, paras. 3, 70.

  105. 105

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para 51; see also T. Ferando, Investment Arbitration: Restricted Area, available at: <http://criticallegalthinking.com/2012/07/16/investment-arbitration-restricted-area/#fn-9659-11>, accessed 1 November 2012.

  106. 106

    L.E. Peterson, IA Reporter, Analysis: Tribunal’s Reading of Amicus Curiae Tests Could Make Life Difficult for Antagonistic Amici – and Those Seeking to Raise Novel Concerns Such as Human Right Law, available at: <http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120628>, accessed 1 December 2012.

  107. 107

    Centre for International Environmental Law, Amicus Brief Highlights the Environmental and Human Rights Impacts of Mining in $77 Million Investment Arbitration Case, available at: <http://www.ciel.org/HR_Envir/PAC_RIM_4Mar11.html>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  108. 108

    Pacific Rim, supra note 89.

  109. 109

    AES Summit, supra note 1; Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 November 2012.

  110. 110

    E. Triantafilou, A More Expansive Role for Amici Curiae in Investment Arbitration? available at: <http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2009/05/11/a-more-expansive-role-for-amici-curiae-in-investment-arbitration>, accessed 1 February 2013.

  111. 111

    Electrabel, supra note 109, para. 4.92; equally in AES the tribunal accepted a significant interest relating to certain matters under EU-law: AES Summit, supra note 1, Decision on Amicus Petition, 26 November 2008, pp. 1-2.

  112. 112

    AES Summit, supra note 1, European Commission, Written Submission Pursuant to Art. 37 (2) ICSID Arbitration Rules, 15 January 2009, JURM (2009)10001; Suez, supra note 71, Amicus Curiae Submission, 4 April 2007; Von Pezold, supra note 7, Petition for Leave to Make Submissions as Amicus Curiae, 23 May 2012.

  113. 113

    United Parcel, supra note 89, para. 71; AES Summit, supra note 111, p. 2, para. (i).

  114. 114

    Pacific Rim, supra note 89, and Amicus Curiae Submission, 20 May 2011.

  115. 115

    AES Summit, supra note 112, para. 13.

  116. 116

    Electrabel, supra note 109, paras. 5.8-5.20, 5.32-5.34.

  117. 117

    Apotex, supra note 91, para. 33.

  118. 118

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, Article 31.(3) (c); See B. Simma and T. Kill, “Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology”, in C. Binder et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 678-707.

  119. 119

    B. Simma, Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place For Human Rights? 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 3 (2011), 573-596, at 584.

  120. 120

    M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN-Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, paras. 410-480.

  121. 121

    O. De Schutter, Confronting the Global Food Challenge: A Human Rights Approach to Trade and Investment Policies, paper given at the conference “Confronting the global food challenge: finding new approaches to trade and investment that support the right to food” (Geneva, Switzerland, 24–26 November 2008), p. 19.

  122. 122

    Koskenniemi (2006), supra note 120, para. 480.

  123. 123

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 117, Article 60(5).

  124. 124

    Charter of the United Nations, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, Articles 1(3) and 55 and 103.

  125. 125

    De Schutter (2009), supra note 121, pp. 4 and 7.

  126. 126

    Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment, 29 March 2006, Series C No. 146, para. 140.

  127. 127

    Biwater, supra note 75.

  128. 128

    Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Republic of Tanzania for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed at Dar es Salaam 7 January 1994, entered into force 2 August 1996.

  129. 129

    Biwater, supra note 75, Award of 24 July 2008, paras. 97, 122-146, 147-175.

  130. 130

    Ibid, paras. 200-228.

  131. 131

    Ibid, paras. 96-98.

  132. 132

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.

  133. 133

    African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), Art. 14 (2) (c); Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13, Art. 14 (2) (h); Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 24 (2) (c).

  134. 134

    Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 15, The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR, UN-Doc. E/C.12/2002/11), paras. 12, 17.

  135. 135

    Ibid, para. 24; C. de Albuquerque, Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, UN-Doc. A/HRC/15/31, 29 June 2010, para. 21.

  136. 136

    Biwater, supra note 75, Amicus Curiae Submission of 26 March 2007 of The Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team et al., para. 98.

  137. 137

    Biwater, supra note 129, paras. 97, 491-493.

  138. 138

    De Albuquerque (2010), supra note 135, para. 36.

  139. 139

    Biwater, supra note 136, para. 85.

  140. 140

    Biwater, supra note 129, para. 601.

  141. 141

    Piero Foresti, supra note 7.

  142. 142

    Agreement between the government of the Republic of South Africa and the government of the Italian Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in Rome 9 June 1997, entered into force 16 March 1999; Agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in Pretoria 14 August 1998, entered into force 14 March 2003.

  143. 143

    Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Petition for Participation as Non-Disputing Party Pursuant to Article 41(3) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, International Commission of Jurists, 19 August 2009, (hereafter, The ICJ Petition); Petition for Limited Participation as Non-Disputing Parties in Terms of Articles 41(3), 27, 39, and 35 of the Additional Facility Rules, The Legal Resources Centre et al., 17 July 2009, (hereafter The LRC Petition).

  144. 144

    The LRC Petition, supra note 143, para. 4.12.

  145. 145

    South African Constitution, Sections 1 (a), Section 9 (2), 25 (4), 25 (8).

  146. 146

    Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), para. 8.

  147. 147

    Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002, 448 Government Gazette, no. 23922 (October 2002), Preamble, paras. 5-7: “Reaffirming the State’s commitment to reform to bring about equitable access to South Africa’s mineral and petroleum resources; Being committed to eradicating all forms of discriminatory practices in the mineral and petroleum industries; Considering the State’s obligation under the Constitution to take legislative and other measures to redress the results of past racial discrimination.”

  148. 148

    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, Art 1 (4) and 2 (2), ratified by South Africa 10 December 1998.

  149. 149

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 47, Art. 2 (1), ratified by South Africa 10 March 1999; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-Discrimination (10 November 1989), para. 10; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 131, Art. 2 (2); African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, supra note 47, Art. 2, ratified by South Africa 7 September 1996.

  150. 150

    The ICJ Petition, supra note 143, para. 24.

  151. 151

    International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission on its Fifty-Third Session, UN-G.A. Official Records, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supp. No. 10 A/56/10, pp. 208 and 283.

  152. 152

    The ICJ Petition, supra note 143, para. 25.

  153. 153

    AES Summit, supra note 112, paras. 68-69.

  154. 154

    Brickhill and Du Plessis (2011), supra note 56, p. 160.

  155. 155

    This took the form of a contractual agreement which effectively exempted the investors from the requirements of the legislation. Ibid, p. 164.

  156. 156

    Von Pezold, supra note 7.

  157. 157

    Agreement between the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed in Harare 14 August 1998, entered into force 14 March 2003; Accord entre la Confédération suisse et la République du Zimbabwe concernant la promotion et la protection réciproque des investissements, signed in Harare 15 August 1996, entered into force 9 February 2001.

  158. 158

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 51.

  159. 159

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 21.

  160. 160

    Von Pezold, supra note 7, Procedural Order No 3, 11 January 2013, para. 18.

  161. 161

    Von Pezold, supra note 159, paras. 18 and 24.

  162. 162

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Art. 26, General Assembly Official Records, UN-Doc. A/RES/61/295.

  163. 163

    United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on its Eighth Session (2009), UN-Doc. E/2009/43-E/C.19/2009/14, para. 14. On the legal status of the Declaration, see also: J. Anaya and S. Wiessner, The UN-Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment, JURIST Legal News & Research (2007), available at: <www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous.php>, accessed 13 February 2013.

  164. 164

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, The Rights of Minorities, 8 April 1994, UN-Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, para. 3.2; Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.23, Indigenous Peoples, 18 August 1997, UN-Doc. A/52/18, Annex V, paras. 4d and 5. The customary nature of indigenous land rights is also recognised: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary y Carrie Dann v. United States of America, Merits, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, para. 124, 131; Inter-American Commission on Human, Derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales sobre sus tierras ancestrales y recursos naturales (2009), OAS-Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.doc.56/09, para. 18; M. Barelli, The Role of Soft Law in the International Legal System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 4 (2009), 957-983, 973-975; J. Anaya and R.A. Williams Jr., The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, 14 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2001), 33-86, 74-84.

  165. 165

    African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria (Ogoni), Communication No. 155/96, para. 64; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on Behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, Communication No. 276/2003, paras. 187, 196.

  166. 166

    Ogoni, supra note 165, paras. 63, 69.

  167. 167

    Endorois, supra note 165, paras. 186-191, 199-204.

  168. 168

    Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principles 17, 12, 18 and Commentary; OECD Guidelines, supra note 64, Part. I, Chap. IV and Commentary. This is also highlighted in 2012 the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Analysis of the duty of the State to protect indigenous peoples affected by transnational corporations and other business enterprises (2012), UN-Doc. E/C.19/2012/3, para. 21.

  169. 169

    World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 (July 2005); International Finance Corporation, Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples (2012), available at: <www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=>, accessed 20 February 2013.

  170. 170

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 57.

  171. 171

    Ibid.

  172. 172

    Peterson (2012), supra note 106.

  173. 173

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 62.

  174. 174

    Ibid, para. 51.

  175. 175

    AES Summit, supra note 1.

  176. 176

    Energy Charter Treaty, 2080 U.N.T.S. 100.

  177. 177

    AES Summit, supra note 1, paras. 10.3.10-10.3.34.

  178. 178

    AES Summit, supra note 112, para. 100.

  179. 179

    Ibid, para. 87.

  180. 180

    Ibid, para. 102.

  181. 181

    Ibid, para. 55.

  182. 182

    Ibid, para. 55, citing Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v. United Mexican States, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 154.

  183. 183

    AES Summit, supra note 1, para. 7.6.6.

  184. 184

    Ibid, paras. 10.3.31-10.3.34.

  185. 185

    Electrabel, supra note 109, paras. 4.130, 4.194-4.195.

  186. 186

    Ibid, paras. 4.130, 4.196.

  187. 187

    Pacific Rim, supra note 78, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, 1 June 2012, para. 2.43.

  188. 188

    Glamis Gold, supra note 89, para. 8.

  189. 189

    Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 50-51.

  190. 190

    E. Levine, Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation, 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2011), 216.

  191. 191

    AES, supra note 1.

  192. 192

    Electrabel, supra note 2.

  193. 193

    Levine (2011), supra note 190, pp. 214-215.

  194. 194

    Ibid, p. 218.

  195. 195

    Ibid, p. 213.

  196. 196

    Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 60.

  197. 197

    ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989), Art. 1 (2); UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note 162, Art. 33 (1); J. R. Martinez Cobo, UN Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations; UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7, paras. 379-382; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment August 24 2010, Series C No. 214, paras. 39-43; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 56/09 (30 December 2009), paras. 31-38; World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 (July 2005), 4(a).

  198. 198

    AES Summit, supra note 1, paras. 10.3.22-10.3.31.

  199. 199

    Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter et al v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case ARB/05/6, Award 22 April 2009, para. 56.

  200. 200

    Ibid, para. 106.

  201. 201

    Ibid; see also L.E. Peterson and R. Garland, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Land Reform in Southern Africa, (Montreal: Rights & Democracy, 2010), p. 9.

  202. 202

    Gathii (2008), supra note 12, pp. 255, 262.

  203. 203

    “Border Timbers Limited was incorporated in 1979 through an amalgamation of three companies namely Border Eastern Forest Estates, Renfee Timbers (Pvt) Limited and Forestry Management Services. Forestry Management Services had taken over plantations that were first established in Imbeza by the British South African Police Company (BSAP co) [sic] in 1924. The BSAP Company increased plantings substantially in 1946 after the Second World War to include the Chimanimani area.” Information from Border Timbers Limited, available at: <http://www.bordertimbers.com/about_us.html>, accessed 1 December 2012.

  204. 204

    United Nations Development Programme (ed.), Zimbabwe Land Reform And Resettlement: Assessment And Suggested Framework For The Future Interim Mission Report (2002); UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Zimbabwe: UK Approach to Land Reform, 27 May 2003, available at: <www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/339/3032509.htm>, accessed 19 March 2012.

  205. 205

    The tribunal is not without its own internal controversy. See P.N. Ndlovu, Campbell v. Republic of Zimbabwe: A Moment of truth for the SADC Tribunal, 1 SADC Law Journal (2011), 63-79.

  206. 206

    Mike Campbell & others V. Republic of Zimbabwe, Southern African Development Community Tribunal, SADC (T) Case No. 2/2007, pp. 53, 55.

  207. 207

    Ibid, p. 54.

  208. 208

    Agreement Amending the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, 14 August 2001, Art. 5; Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, 17 August 1992, Art. 5 (a) and (d).

  209. 209

    Mike Campbell, supra note 202, p. 26, referring to the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, supra note 201, Art. 4 (c) and 6 (1).

  210. 210

    SADC Secretariat Press Release, SADC, KfW [Development Bank] and DBSA [Development Bank of Southern Africa] sign Agreement on a Regional Fund for Water and Basic Sanitation, 13 January 2012. Available at: <www.sadc.int/files/6613/5783/5076/Press_Release_signing_Water_Fund_Agreement_final_version.pdf>, accessed 20 February 2013.

  211. 211

    Art. 19, SADC, Protocol on Finance and Investment, entered into force on 16 April 2010.

  212. 212

    Levine (2012), supra note 190, p. 216.

  213. 213

    SADC Model BIT, supra note 60, p. 3.

  214. 214

    Ibid, Preamble, pp. 5-6.

  215. 215

    Ibid, Preamble, pp. 5-6, and Part III, Articles 13-21, pp. 34-41.

  216. 216

    Levine (2012), supra note 190, pp. 215-216.

  217. 217

    Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 9.

  218. 218

    World Bank, Regional Integration and Cooperation: Southern Africa – Southern African Development Community. Available at: <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/EXTREGINI/EXTAFRREGINICOO/0,,contentMDK:20626642~menuPK:1592446~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1587585,00.html>, accessed 27 May 2013; R. Lee, South Africa and Regional Economic Integration, 10 August 2011. Available at: <http://www.osisa.org/economic-justice/south-africa-and-regional-economic-integration>, accessed 27 May 2013.

  219. 219

    The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Karel Fick and others, Constitutional Court of South Africa, Case CCT 101/12. Documents available at: <http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za>, accessed 27 May 2013.

  220. 220

    Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 704. See also Schill (2009), supra note 45, p. 375.

  221. 221

    European Court of Human Rights, Broniowski v. Poland, Case no. 31443/96, Judgment 28 September 2005, ECHR 2005-IX, para. 149.

  222. 222

    Salacuse (2010), supra note 17, p. 57.

  223. 223

    Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 704.

  224. 224

    Continental Casualty, supra note 43, para. 181.

  225. 225

    Ibid, footnote at para. 270.

  226. 226

    Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award 6 February 2007, para. 354.

Published Online: 2013-09-04

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston