Position of the Standard of fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investments Based on Arbitration

Document Type : ISI

Authors

1 Department of Public Law, in Oil and Gas Law Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran,Tehran. Iran.

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

Abstract

The standard or condition of fair and equitable treatment issues is one of the most basic standards of conduct in international investment law, according to which the host government must provide favorable conditions for the protection of foreign investor property per international law standards. Due to the ambiguity of this standard, different interpretations of it have been presented. In this article, the main question was what procedures the international arbitration regarding fair and equitable behavior, especially in the field of oil and gas, has taken place, and by collecting materials by library method and using analytical and descriptive research method, it has been argued that the various arbitral tribunals have set different thresholds for the establishment of balance and fairness, that the conduct of a country must reach that level before it can be considered a breach of equitable conduct, and it has been concluded that in each case violation of fair behavior has unique facts, and the most important result is precisely the specific nature of the truth in each of the fair trial claims, and although a flexible standard can be reliable for resolving a wide range of government misconduct, it remains somewhat uncertain.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. منابع

    الف) فارسی

    1. ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله؛ سیدعلیرضا طباطبایی بافقی(1394). «روش‌شناسی و ابزار تحقیق در حقوق نفت‌وگاز». مطالعات حقوق انرژی، پاییز و زمستان، شمارة 2، ص152-139. در: http://noo.rs/SR9Je (21 شهریور 1400)
    2. انصاری مهیاری، علیرضا؛ لیلا رئیسی (1397). «استانداردهای بین‌المللی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی». دوفصلنامة حقوق بین‌المللی اقتصادی، سال بیست‌وپنجم، شمارة 13، ص88-47. در:

           http://noo.rs/qpWSC (21 شهریور 1400)

    1. پورهاشمی، سیدعباس؛ مریم‌السادات موسوی (1390). «مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در حقوق محیط‌زیست». فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوق خصوصی و کیفری، دورة هفتم، شمارة 1، ص92-75. در:

          https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=245113 (26 آبان 1400)

    1. رستمی، ولی؛ احمد رنجبر (1394). «ابعاد حقوقی مالیات بر نفت‌وگاز». مطالعات حقوق انرژی، شمارة 1 (1)، ص60-37.

         DOI: 10.22059/jrels.2015.54551

    1. رستمی، ولی؛ وحید اسدزاده (1396). «بررسی حقوقی تأثیر مالیات بر سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی». پژوهش‌نامة مالیات، دورة بیست‌وپنجم، شمارة 33 (پیاپی 81)، ص165-149. در:

         https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=470129 (5 مرداد 1400)

    1. شمسایی، محمد؛ سیدعلی حسینی آزاد (1400). «نقش شفافیت در تفسیر شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری». فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ پنجاه‌ویکم، شمارۀ 2، ص803-783.

         DOI: 10.22059/jplsq.2020.294951.2283

    1. صبور، مسعود (1382). «آژانس چندجانبة تضمین سرمایه‌گذاری (میگا) و استانداردهای سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی». پژوهش‌های حقوقی، شمارة 2 (4)، ص132-107. در: http://noo.rs/IgDhJ (21 تیر 1400)

     

    ب) خارجی

    8. Dolzer, R (2005). “Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties”. The International Lawyer, 39(1), pp87-106.   http://www.jstor.org/stable/40707790 (Accessed 2 september 2021).

    9. Ebrahim, Z; Inderwildi, O.R; King, D.A (2014). “Macroeconomic impacts of oil price volatility: mitigation and resilience”. Front. Energy 8, pp9–24.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-014-0303-0 .

    10.Geethanjali Nataraj; Pravakar Sahoo (2003). “Argentina's Crisis: Causes and Consequences”. Economic and Political Weekly (17), pp1641-1644. Retrieved September 6, 2021. www.jstor.org/stable/4413486 (Accessed 13 March 2022).

    11. Maniruzzaman, A. F. M (2012). “The Issue of Resource Nationalism: Risk Engineering and Dispute Management in the Oil and Gas Industry”. Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law 79, p 87. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1985171 (Accessed 13 March 2021).

    12. OECD (2004). “Fair and Equitable Standard in International Investment Law”. OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/03, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/675702255435.

    13. Paul Michael Blyschak (2010). “Arbitrating Overseas Oil and Gas Disputes: Breaches of Contract Versus Breaches of Treaty”. Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 27 Issue 6, pp 579–629.

       https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+International+  Arbitration/27.6/JOIA2010034 (Accessed 20 october 2021).

    14. Schill, S. “Fair and Equitable Treatment under Investment Treaties as an Embodiment of the Rule of Law”. Institute for International Law 2006/6. (Global Administrative Law Series). DOI:10.5771/9783845203317-31.

    15. Stephan Schill (2010). “International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law”. Oxford University Pressو M10 14 - 836 pages.   DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.001.0001

    16. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, Expropriation (2012). “Fair and Equtable Treatment”. United Nation Sconference On Trade And Development, United Nations New York And Geneva.  https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en (Accessed 11 september 2021).

     

    Cases

    17. Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. V 116/.

    18. BG Group Plc. v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award (24 Dec. 2007) (BG).

    19. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22.

    20. Burlington v. Ecuador, Duke v. Ecuador (both US-Ecuador BIT), Conoco v. Venezuela, Mobil v. Venezuela (both Dutch-Venezuela BIT).

    21. Chevron Corp. v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 34877, Partial Award on the Merits (30 March 2010) (Chevron).

    22. Christopher Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009).

    23. ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 Sept. 2013) (Conoco v. Venezuela).

    24. Duke Energy Electroquil Partners v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award (18 Aug 2008) (Duke), pp 156-62.

    25. El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award (31 October 2011) (El Paso).

    26. Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 226, Final Award (18 July 2004) (Hulley).

    27. LG & E Energy Corp, LG & E Capital Corp, and LG & E International, Inc. v.
    Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability 3 October 2006.

    28. Liman Caspian Oil BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14, Excerpts of Award 22 June.

    29. Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27).

    30. Mobil Invs. Canada Inc. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum (redacted) (22 May 2012) (“Mobil v. Canada”).

    31. National Grid P.L.C. v. Argentina AWARD Date: November 3, 2008.

    32. Paushok v. Mongolia Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSCVostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, www.italaw.com/cases/816.

    33. Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24,
    Award (27 Aug 2008).

    34. RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award December 10, 2010.

    35. Snodgrass, E., “Protecting Investors Legitimate Expectations and Recognizing and Delimiting a General Principle”, ICSID Rev., 2006.

    36. Stati and others v. Kazakhstan Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (SCC Case No. 116/2010).

    37. The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3 6 May 2013.

    38. Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on
    Liability (27 Dec 2010) (Total).

    39. Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al (case formerly known as Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, 9 Oct 2014.

    40. Waste Management v. United States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (30 April 2004)

Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 9, Issue 1
August 2023
Pages 19-36

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics