"Necessity Defense" in international tribunal case law: A Mirage in Protecting State's Essential Interests?

Document Type : ISI

Authors

1 PhD in International law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

 Introduction
 In today’s complex and interconnected world, States are forced to balance their international obligations with the imperatives of protecting their essential interests. While international law requires States to perform their obligations in good faith, it also provides limited exceptions to exceptional circumstances. One of the most important of these exceptions is “necessity,” which, according to Article 25 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States (2001), allows States to temporarily derogate from certain obligations in the event of a grave and imminent peril to their essential interests, provided that they comply with strict conditions. Meanwhile, a review of arbitration cases arising from the Argentine economic crisis in the early 2000s, often brought by gas investors, as well as cases brought before other international tribunals, particularly the International Court of Justice, has provided a concrete example of the practical challenges of defending necessity against international obligations of States. In light of such a reality, the question arises as to how effective the defense of necessity can be in times of crisis and in order to protect the essential interests of States.
Methodology
 This article uses a library study to gather information and identify existing challenges, complemented by a comparative analysis of the sources. The aim of this study is to present conclusions taking into account international jurisprudence as well as the practice of States in invoking the defense of necessity. The authors argue that the necessity defense, despite its important theoretical position, has not been accepted in practice and has merely played a complementary and subsidiary role alongside other State defenses in some cases.
 Conclusions
 The study concludes that the basis for the “necessity defense” can be found in the “principle of fairness,” which aims to strike a balance between the essential interests of the State and the rights of the contracting party. According to it, compliance with obligations should not cause harm to the essential interests of the State. Therefore, necessity is an excuse that comes to the rescue when the essential interests of the State are at stake, so that the State can take the necessary measures on the basis of it and not be found to be in breach of its international obligations and subsequently be discharged from liability for full compensation. On the other hand, the reasonable expectations of the contracting party regarding the good faith implementation of the obligation, the stability and predictability of the other party’s behavior and obligations, make it necessary to prevent the State from abusing necessity. For this reason, the wording of Article 25 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States has been written in such a way that the State can resort to it in truly urgent situations, in order to prevent possible abuse by States and not to jeopardize the order existing in international obligations. However, necessity has in practice become a defense that has not been successfully invoked so far. In all cases, the necessity defense has been rejected by the tribunal. Even in cases where the tribunal has paid attention to necessity and taken a relatively positive approach, this attention has been for the purpose of the approval of other State defenses, such as the security exception. In other words, necessity has so far failed to independently assist States in times of need and has only played a complementary role in some cases.
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع
بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم (1402). حقوق بین‌الملل. جلد اول، چاپ دوم، تهران، میزان.
پیری، مهدی؛ شکیب، محمدرضا؛ احمدپور، بهاره (1397). «بررسی رویکرد دیوان‌های داوری ایکسید به دفاع ضرورت و شرط استثنا: تأملی بر پرونده‌های گازی آرژانتین». مطالعات حقوق انرژی، دورة 4، شمارة 2، ص403-377.Doi: 10.22059/jrels.2018.255871.200
زمانی، سید قاسم (1392). حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی. تهران، شهر دانش.
شکیب، محمدرضا (1397). دفاع ضرورت در رویة داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی: چالش‌های پیش‌رو. تهران، انتشارات خرسندی.
 ___ (1403). گسترة صلاحدید دولت در تفسیر شرط استثنای امنیت در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری. رسالة دکتری، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران.
ضیایی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1388). حقوق معاهدات بین‌المللی. چاپ چهارم، تهران، گنج دانش.
ممتاز، جمشید؛ شایگان، فریده (1393). حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانه. تهران، شهر دانش.
 
References
Beigzadeh, Ebrahim (2023). International Law. Vol. 1, Mizan. [in persian]
Caron, D. C (2002). “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship between Form and Authority”. the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 857-873. https://doi.org/10.2307/3070682
Desierto, Diane A (2012). Necessity and National Emergency Clauses: Sovereignty in Modern Treaty Interpretation. Brill.
Hill, Sarah F (2007). “The Necessity Defense and the Emerging Arbitral Conflict in its Application to the U.S.–Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty”. Law and Business Review of the Americas, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 547-567.
ICJ, Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory, (merits), Judgment, I.C.J Rep (12 April 1960).
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ REP, (9 July 2004).
ICJ. Gabcıkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), I.C.J. Rep (Judgment of 25 September 1997).
ICSID, Angel Samuel seda v. Colombia, Award, Case No. ARB/19/6 (27 June 2024).
ICSID, CMS Gas Transmission Company V. Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, Case No. ARB/01/8, (September 25, 2007).
ICSID, CMS Gas Transmission Company V. Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/01/8, (May 12, 2005).
ICSID, Continental Casualty Company V. Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/03/9, (Sep. 5, 2008).
ICSID, EL Paso Energy International Company v. the Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/03/15, (31 October 2011).
ICSID, Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. V. Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/01/3, (May 22, 2007).
ICSID, Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/07/17, (21 June 2011).
ICSID, LG&E Energy Corp. V. Argentine Republic, Decision on Liability, Case No. ARB/02/1, (Oct. 3, 2006).
ICSID, Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/19/25, (14 December 2023).
ICSID, Sempra Energy International v. Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, (28 September 2007).
ICSID, Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A v. The Argentine Republic, Award, Case No. ARB/09/1, (21 July 2017).
ICSID, Total S.A.v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Annulment, Case No. ARB/04/1, 1 February 2016.
ICSID, Total S.A.v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Liability, Case No. ARB/04/1, 27 December 2010.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić, (IT-95-14), ICTY Trial Chamber, (3 March 2000).
ITLOS, MIV "SAIGA" (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS Reports, (1 July 1999).
Momtaz, Djamshid & Farideh Shaygan (2014). International Humanitarian Law, S.D.I.L. [in persian]
Neff, Stephen C (2014). Justice Among Nations: A History of International Law. Harvard university press.
PCA, Deutsche Telekom AG v. The Republic of India, Case No. 2014-10, Interim Award, (13 December 2017).
Piri Mehdi; Shakib, Mohammadreza; Ahmadpour, Bahare (2018). “Examination of the Approach of ICSID Arbitration Tribunals to Necessity Defense and Exception Clause: Contemplating on Argentine Gas Cases”. JRELS, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 377-403.
     http://doi: 10.22059/jrels.2018.255871.200 [in persian]
Shakib, Mohammadreza (2018). Necessity Defense in International Investment Arbitration Procedure: Challenges Ahead. khorsandy. [in persian]
 ___ (2024). Extent of government discretion in interpreting the exception to the security requirement in international capitalist law. phD Thesis, University of Tehran, Faculty of Law and Political Science. [in persian]
Sloane, Robert D (2012). “on the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility”. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 447-508.      http://doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.3.0447     
YILC, A/CN.4/SER.A/Add.1 (2), (2001).
YILC, sixty-third session, (A/66/10), vol. II (2), (2011).
Zamani, seyed Ghasem (2013). The Law of International Organization. S.D.I.L. [in persian]
Ziai Bigdeli, Mohammad Reza (2009). The Law of International Treaties. Ganjedanesh. [in persian]
 
 
 
Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 10, Issue 2
March 2025
Pages 281-304

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics