Download ebooks file Domestic law in international investment arbitration 1st edition hepburn all ch by Ebook Home

Domestic law in

investment arbitration 1st Edition Hepburn

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/domestic-law-in-international-investment-arbitration-1 st-edition-hepburn/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Attribution in International Law and Arbitration 1st Edition Carlo De Stefano

https://textbookfull.com/product/attribution-in-internationallaw-and-arbitration-1st-edition-carlo-de-stefano/

Applicable law in investor state arbitration the interplay between national and international law 1st Edition Hege Elisabeth Kjos

https://textbookfull.com/product/applicable-law-in-investorstate-arbitration-the-interplay-between-national-andinternational-law-1st-edition-hege-elisabeth-kjos/

Treaty shopping in international investment law First Edition Baumgartner

https://textbookfull.com/product/treaty-shopping-ininternational-investment-law-first-edition-baumgartner/

International Investment Law and Competition Law Katia Fach Gómez

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-investment-lawand-competition-law-katia-fach-gomez/

State-to-state Arbitration based on International Investment Agreements: Scope, Utility and Potential Angshuman Hazarika

https://textbookfull.com/product/state-to-state-arbitrationbased-on-international-investment-agreements-scope-utility-andpotential-angshuman-hazarika/

Stabilization Clauses in International Investment Law A Sustainable Development Approach 1st Edition Jola Gjuzi

https://textbookfull.com/product/stabilization-clauses-ininternational-investment-law-a-sustainable-developmentapproach-1st-edition-jola-gjuzi/

Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2014-2015 1st Edition Bjorklund

https://textbookfull.com/product/yearbook-on-internationalinvestment-law-policy-2014-2015-1st-edition-bjorklund/

Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues 2nd Edition Katia YannacaSmall (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/arbitration-under-internationalinvestment-agreements-a-guide-to-the-key-issues-2nd-editionkatia-yannaca-small-editor/

Women s Rights and Religious Law Domestic and International Perspectives 1st Edition Parmod Kumar

https://textbookfull.com/product/women-s-rights-and-religiouslaw-domestic-and-international-perspectives-1st-edition-parmodkumar/

DOMESTIC LAW IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW SERIES

International Economic Law series, established by the late Professor John H. Jackson, addresses a range of issues in international economic law, which includes international trade law, international investment law, and the global financial order. The series aims to encourage interest in the broad contours of international economic law, heightening awareness of its significance across the globe as well as its continuous interactions with other areas. The series editors encourage quality submissions from a wide range of perspectives, including doctrinal, theoretical, empirical, and interdisciplinary viewpoints. Novel and cutting edge research is particularly welcome, as are contributions from both emerging and established scholars from around the world.

Series Editors

Andrew D. Mitchell

Professor at Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

Tania Voon

Professor at Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

recent titles in the series Treaty Shopping in International Law Jorun Baumgartner

Good Faith and International Economic Law

Edited by Andrew D. Mitchell, M Sornarajah, and Tania Voon Development at the WTO Sonia E. Rolland

Domestic Law in International Investment Arbitration

by JARROD HEPBURN

1

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Jarrod Hepburn 2017

The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2017

Impression: 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017931026

ISBN 978–0–19–878573–6

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

For Dad

Series Editor’s Preface

The question of domestic law in international investment arbitration as addressed in this volume by Jarrod Hepburn is of growing importance in both theoretical and practical terms, as reflected in both investment treaty awards and, increasingly, international investment agreements (‘IIAs’). The 2015 decision of the majority in Clayton/Bilcon v Canada, according to the dissenting arbitrator Professor Donald McRae, controversially equated a breach of Canadian law with a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In late 2016, the tribunal in the long-running dispute of Pac Rim Cayman v El Salvador, constituted under the ICSID Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes, confirmed its jurisdiction to rule on a matter arising under Salvadoran investment law. After hearing considerable expert evidence on the central issue of the correct interpretation of Salvadoran law, the tribunal found no breach of either Salvadoran or international law. Perhaps partly in response to these kinds of disputes, countries such as Colombia, Canada and the European Union have attempted in some of their IIAs to limit the jurisdiction of investment tribunals in determining the legality of a measure under the domestic law of the host State, including in the now signed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union.

These kinds of attempts by States to curtail the jurisdiction and power of investment tribunals with respect to domestic law appear consistent with the traditional view of domestic law as a question of mere ‘fact’ rather than ‘law’ for the purposes of public international law. However, as Hepburn explains, that traditional ‘rule’ is subject to uncertainty, exceptions and blurred edges, both in international law in general and in international investment law in particular. Some IIAs specifically identify domestic law as part of the applicable law for an investment treaty tribunal, while in other circumstances tribunals must in any event turn to domestic law to delineate contractual or property rights, in the absence of relevant international law rules. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), a parallel realm of international economic law, the Appellate Body has also refused to treat domestic law purely as fact, by insisting on its capacity to review WTO panels’ examination of such law.

In his conclusion, Hepburn cites Calvo in recalling the disconnect between domestic law and international investment law, and in particular the debate over whether foreign investors can properly demand greater protections under international law than local investors receive under domestic law. This debate becomes more complicated in the context of well-established domestic judicial systems that would ordinarily not be expected to discriminate against foreign investors. This volume makes an important contribution to the debate in revealing the myriad ways in which domestic law infiltrates international investment arbitration, with the potential to (as he puts it) ‘shorte[n] the distance’ between domestic and international

protections for investors. Such interactions are only likely to increase, if moves continue towards imposing obligations on investors in IIAs (as seen, for example, in the 2015 Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty), particularly where accompanied by the possibility of host States bringing counterclaims or even direct claims against investors for, say, failing to comply with host State law.

Unfortunately, as this volume demonstrates, many tribunals have not grappled well with questions of domestic law in international investment arbitration. Soft law instruments have developed in other areas of international arbitration, such as the 2008 report of the International Law Association on ascertaining the contents of the applicable law in international commercial arbitration, and the guidelines of the International Bar Association on conflicts of interest in international arbitration (revised in 2014). However, similar guidance does not yet exist to assist tribunals in determining issues of domestic law in international investment arbitration. In that context, Hepburn’s recommendations have the potential to form the basis for enhanced soft law on the determination of the content of domestic law in international investment arbitration. Those recommendations include interpreting and applying domestic law as it exists in its own jurisdiction, that is, with reference to relevant domestic interpretations, principles, statutes and caselaw, as well as to experts called by the parties or the tribunal itself. The detailed analysis and justifications underlying these recommendations as set out in this volume provide a crucial reference for future discussions and disputes.

Andrew D. Mitchell and Tania Voon November 2016

Acknowledgements

This book is a revised version of my DPhil thesis defended at the University of Oxford in 2014. I was fortunate to have Paul Craig as my supervisor at Oxford; his knowledge of an immensely wide range of areas of law was invaluable in shaping the original thesis. I am also grateful to Vaughan Lowe and Nancy Eisenhauer for their assistance with my DPhil confirmation process, to Dan Sarooshi and Federico Ortino for their incisive comments as my DPhil examiners, and to the anonymous reviewers at Oxford University Press for their very helpful feedback and suggestions in revising the work for publication.

I am indebted to the McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellowship at Melbourne Law School for giving me the time needed to finalize the book. At Melbourne I owe much to Jürgen Kurtz, who generously agreed to grant me his expert attention on elements of the book and his mentorship on the McKenzie Fellowship.

I thank participants in various seminars at which parts of this work were presented, including at the University of Luxembourg, Singapore Management University, Melbourne Law School, and All Souls’ College, Oxford.

I have also benefited from conversations with many other people on the fascinating landscape of investment law over several years. In particular, I thank Farrah Ahmed, Eirik Bjorge, Jonathan Bonnitcha, Govert Coppens, Rishab Gupta, Jonathan Ketcheson, Gashahun Lemessa, Kubo Macak, Campbell McLachlan, Martins Paparinskis, Luke Peterson, Sergey Ripinsky, and Matteo Vaccaro Incisa.

Parts of the book were written while I was a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, and I thank Stefan Vogenauer (formerly) at Oxford and the Max Planck staff for enabling this visit. Geraldine Malloy at the Oxford Law Faculty, and Glynis Price and Nicola Trott at Balliol College, also provided support at key administrative moments during the DPhil process.

My studies at Oxford were funded by the Chevening Scholarship, the Rae and Edith Bennett Travelling Scholarship, Allan Myers QC, and the UK Foundation for International Uniform Law. Their faith in my abilities was essential to the completion of the project’s foundations.

Lastly, I am eternally thankful to my family for supporting my work in many ways. I hope that this book offers at least something in return.

PART I IDENTIFYING DOMESTIC LAW ISSUES

3.3.4

3.3.5

4.2 Application of Domestic Law when Determining Remedies

4.2.1 Local failure to act

4.2.2 Validity of the investment affecting compensation

4.2.3 Temporal extent of claimant’s rights

4.2.4 Conclusion

4.3 Relevance of Domestic Law Rules on Interest Payments

4.3.1

4.3.2 Reference to host state law specifically

4.3.3 Reference to host state law on interest determinations

4.3.4

4.4 Compliance with Domestic Law as a Factor in Remedies Determinations

4.4.1 Factors allowing consideration of compliance with domestic law in remedies determinations

4.4.2 Domestic legality and non-monetary remedies

4.4.3

4.5 Conclusion

PART II RESOLVING DOMESTIC LAW ISSUES IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION

5 Ascertaining the Contents

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4 The Practicalities of Ascertaining the Contents of Domestic Law

5.4.1 Guidance in arbitral rules

5.4.2 Arbitrators’ knowledge of domestic law

5.4.3 Guidance from international courts

5.4.4 Guidance from national courts

5.4.5 Guidance from international commercial arbitration

5.5 The Principle of Iura Novit Curia in Investment Arbitration

5.6 Weighting Domestic Case-law and Other Domestic Law Materials

5.6.1 Fear of host state manipulation of local case-law

5.6.2 No binding res judicata for local case-law

5.6.3 Resolving conflicts or uncertainties in domestic case-law

5.7 Expert Evidence on Domestic Law

5.8 Conclusion

6 Applying the Framework—Preliminaries

6.1 Introduction

6.2 What Counts as Domestic Law?

6.2.1 All host state law, or only fundamental laws?

6.2.2 Any laws, or only laws related to investment?

6.2.3 Only laws that are rule-of-law compliant?

6.3

6.3.1

6.4

7.1

7.1.1

7.1.2

7.1.3

7.1.4

7.1.5

7.2

7.2.1

7.2.2

7.2.3

7.3

Table of Cases

Accession Mezzanine Capital LP v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/3), Award, 17 April 2015 1, 184

ADC Affiliate Ltd v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/03/16), Award of the Tribunal, 2 October 2006 53, 57, 85, 155

Adel al Tamimi v Oman (ICSID Case No ARB/11/33), Award, 3 November 2015 .

Adem Dogan v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No ARB/09/9), Award, 12 August 2014

Adem Dogan v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No ARB/09/9), Decision on Annulment, 15 January 2016 .

ADF Group Inc v USA (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/1), Award, 9 January 2003

15, 133

108

21, 28

AES Summit Generation Ltd v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/07/22), Award, 23 September 2010 34, 104

Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v DRC) (Compensation) [2012] ICJ Rep 324 95

Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v DRC) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ Rep 639 32, 114

Alasdair Anderson v Costa Rica (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/3), Award, 19 May 2010 157, 184

Al-Bahloul v Tajikistan (SCC Case No V 064/2008), Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2 September 2009 15, 22, 26, 128, 171

Albert Jan Oostergetel v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2010 195

Albert Jan Oostergetel v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 23 April 2012

Alex Genin v Estonia (ICSID Case No ARB/99/2), Award, 25 June 2001

Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/07/16), Award, 8 November 2010. .

Amco Asia Corporation v Indonesia (1993) 1 ICSID Rep 413 .

122

31, 34, 35, 178-9

29, 61, 78, 146, 156

87, 132

Anaconda-Iran Inc v Iran (Case No 167, Award No ITL 65-167-3), Interlocutory Award, 10 December 1986 89

Antoine Goetz v Burundi (ICSID Case No ARB/95/3), Award, 10 February 1999 47, 49–51, 97, 98, 124, 152, 167, 169,183

Ares International srl v Georgia (ICSID Case No ARB/05/23), Award, 28 February 2008 132

ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v Jordan (ICSID Case No ARB/08/2), Award, 18 May 2010 97

Azurix Corp v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/12), Award, 14 July 2006 38–9, 45

Azurix Corp v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/12), Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 1 September 2009

Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi AŞ v Pakistan (ICSID Case No ARB/03/29), Award, 27 August 2009

108

104

Bayview Irrigation District v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/05/1), Award, 19 June 2007 107, 185–6

Bernardus Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No ARB/05/6), Award, 22 April 2009 60 Bernhard von Pezold v Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No ARB/10/15), Award, 28 July 2015 57, 67, 72, 95, 97, 98, 105

Beyeler v Italy App No 33202/96 (ECHR, 5 January 2000) 153

Binder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction, 6 June 2007 195 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v Tanzania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/22), Award, 24 July 2008

Bosh International Inc v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/11), Award, 25 October 2012.

BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Libya (1979) 53 ILR 297

British Caribbean Bank Ltd v Belize (PCA Case No 2010-18), Award, 19 December 2014

19, 61

. 186

123

183

Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC BV v Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/9), Further Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 9 October 2012 . . . . . . 87

Buyan v Greece App No 28644/08 (ECHR, 3 July 2012) .

Carbonara and Ventura v Italy App No 24638/94 (ECHR, 30 May 2000) .

153

Cargill Inc v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/05/2), Award, 18 September 2009 16, 34, 39

Centro Europa srl v Italy App No 38433/09 (ECHR, 7 June 2012) 59

Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) Series A No 7 (1926) 104

Chemtura Corporation v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award, 2 August 2010 43, 177

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), Decision on Track 1B, 12 March 2015 128

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), First Partial Award on Track I, 17 September 2013

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), Opinion of Jan Paulsson, 12 March 2012.

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 27 February 2012

190

105

190

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23), Track 2 Supplemental Rejoinder on the Merits of the Republic of Ecuador, 17 March 2015 97

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 31 August 2011 75

Chevron Corporation v Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Partial Award on the Merits, 30 March 2010 74, 76, 175

Citibank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (LCIA), First Partial Award, 1 August 2011 159

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Comments Relating to Applicable Law on the Stockholm Tribunal’s Final Award of 14 March 2003, 30 March 2003 120

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 14 March 2003 . . . . . 87, 121

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Legal Opinion of Christoph Schreuer and August Reinisch, 20 June 2002

106

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award, 13 September 2001 . . . . . 43

CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/8), Award, 12 May 2005

Comingersoll SA v Portugal App No 35382/97 (ECHR, 6 April 2000) 76

Compania de Aguas del Aconquija SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/97/3), Award, 20 August 2007 60

Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v Ecuador (PCA Case No 2012-2), Award, 15 March 2016 92

Cyprus v Turkey App No 25781/94 (ECHR, Judgment of 12 May 2014, Concurring Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque) 93

Dan Cake (Portugal) SA v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/9), Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 24 August 2015 .

David Minnotte v Poland (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/10/1), Award, 16 May 2014

Desert Line Projects LLC v Yemen (ICSID Case No ARB/05/17), Award, 6 February 2008 .

14, 140–2, 144–6, 155

Deutsche Bank AG v Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No ARB/09/02), Award, 31 October 2012 .

159

Duke Energy Electroquil Partners v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/04/19), Award, 18 August 2008 36, 39, 88, 173

Eastern Sugar BV (Netherlands) v Czech Republic (SCC No 008/2004), Partial Award, 27 March 2007 88, 90,195

EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/13), Award, 8 October 2009 21, 34, 184

El Paso Energy International v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/15), Award, 31 October 2011 .

. 16, 27, 31, 71, 86, 119

Electrabel SA v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/07/19), Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012 .

104

Elettronica Sicula SpA (ELSI) (US v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15 .

Elettronica Sicula SpA (ELSI) (US v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel .

Eli Lilly v Canada (ICSID Case No UNCT/14/2), Government of Canada, Rejoinder Memorial, 8 December 2015 .

32, 105

132

Emmis International Holding BV (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2), Award, 16 April 2014 1, 2, 41, 110, 184

Emmis International Holding BV v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/ 12/ 2), Request for Arbitration, 28 October 2011 1

EnCana Corporation v Ecuador (LCIA), Award, 3 February 2006 133

Energoalians SARL v Moldova (UNCITRAL), Arbitral Award, 23 October 2013 16, 17

Enron Corporation Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/3), Award, 22 May 2007 33

Enron Corporation v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/3), Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 30 July 2010

Eureko BV v Poland (ad hoc arbitration), Partial Award, 19 August 2005

Eureko BV v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010

121

195

Europe Cement Investment & Trade SA v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/2), Award, 13 August 2009 186

Factory at Chorzow (Germany v Poland) Series A No 17 (1928) 67, 71, 74, 76, 78, 86, 92–3, 95

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/02/01), Award, 17 July 2006 45

Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway), Judgment of 18 December 1951 [1952] ICJ Rep 116 156

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Germany v Iceland) (1974) ICJ Rep 175

123

Flughafen Zürich AG v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/19), Award, 18 November 2014 . . . . 132

Forminster Enterprises Ltd v Czech Republic App No 38238/04 (ECHR, 9 October 2008) . . . . . . . 153

Franck Charles Arif v Moldova (ICSID Case No ARB/11/23), Award, 8 April 2013 .

Franz Sedelmayer v Russia (ad hoc), Arbitration Award, 7 July 1998.

95, 97, 98, 155, 160–1, 188

51, 85

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/03/25), Award, 16 August 2007 161,127, 131–2, 144–5, 151, 155–6, 157, 161, 176

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/03/25), Decision on the Application for Annulment of Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, 23 December 2010 110, 131–2, 144, 176

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/03/25), Dissenting Opinion of Bernardo Cremades, 19 July 2007 146, 156, 158, 175, 176

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/11/12), Award, 10 December 2014

106, 141, 185

F-W Oil Interests Inc v Trinidad and Tobago (ICSID Case No ARB/01/14), Award, 3 March 2006.

GAMI Investments Inc v Mexico (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 15 November 2004 .

167, 182–3

16–7, 26, 28

Gavazzi v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/12/15), Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015 92

GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/16), Award, 31 March 2011 31, 80, 164, 179

Generation Ukraine Inc v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/00/9), Award, 16 September 2003 27

Glamis Gold Ltd v USA (UNCITRAL), Award, 8 June 2009 17–8, 28, 34, 40, 178

Gold Reserve Inc v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/09/1), Award, 22 September 2014 184 Government of the Province of East Kalimantan v PT Kaltim Prima Coal (ICSID Case No ARB/07/3), Award on Jurisdiction, 28 December 2009 .

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd v USA (UNCITRAL), Award, 12 January 2011 .

Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Ghana (ICSID Case No ARB/07/24), Award, 18 June 2010

28–9, 166–7

141, 165

H&H Enterprises Investments Inc v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/09/15), The Tribunal’s Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 5 June 2012 180

Havala v Slovakia App No 47804/99 (ECHR, 12 November 2002) 76

Helnan International Hotels A/S v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/05/19), Award, 3 July 2008 132

Hentrich v France App No 13616/88 (ECHR, 22 September 1994) 153–4

Hochtief AG v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/31), Decision on Liability, 29 December 2014 147

Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v UAE (ICSID Case No ARB/02/7), Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr Soufraki, 5 June 2007 .

Iatridis v Greece App No 31107/96 (ECHR, 25 March 1999) .

İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No ARB/10/24), Award, 8 March 2016.

. . 108, 110, 132

65, 123

Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v El Salvador (ICSID Case No ARB/03/26), Award, 2 August 2006 127–33, 163–5

Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/8), Award, 1 March 2012 92, 149–50

Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/8), Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010 155, 170, 171

International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico (UNCITRAL), Arbitral Award, 26 January 2006

27, 104, 107, 161

International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico (UNCITRAL), Separate Opinion of Thomas Waelde, December 2005

15–6, 27, 161, 196

Ioan Micula v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/20), Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 24 September 2008.

123

Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Georgia (ICSID Case No ARB/05/18), Award, 3 March 2010 52, 54, 55, 56, 66

Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Georgia (ICSID Case No ARB/05/18), Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007 156

Iurii Bogdanov v Moldova (SCC), Arbitral Award, 22 September 2005 59, 121

James v UK App No 8793/79 (ECHR, 21 February 1986) 153

Joseph Lemire v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/06/18), Award, 28 March 2011 77

Joseph Lemire v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/06/18), Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010 .

2, 31,37–9, 74, 77, 98, 174, 179

Kemal Uzan v Turkey App No 18240/03 (ECHR, 29 March 2011) .

Klauz v Croatia App No 28963/10 (ECHR, Judgment of 18 July 2013) .

130

111

Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH v Cameroon (ICSID Case No ARB/81/2), Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985 120, 169

Kononov v Latvia App No 36376/04 (ECHR, 17 May 2010) 133

Kopecký v Slovakia App No 44912/98 (ECHR, Judgment of 28 September 2004) 111, 115, 129

Kopp v Switzerland App No 23224/94 (ECHR, Judgment of 25 March 1998) 111

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Norway v Denmark) PCIJ Series A/B No 53 (1933) 8

LESI SpA and Astaldi SpA v Algeria (ICSID Case No ARB/05/3), Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006

140–2, 145–6

LG&E Energy Corporation v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/02/1), Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006

Libananco Holdings Co Ltd v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/06/8), Award, 2 September 2011 . . . . 184

Libananco Holdings Co Ltd v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/06/8), Decision on Annulment, 22 May 2013 .

Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v Libya (1981) 20 ILM 1.

123

86–7

LLC AMTO v Ukraine (SCC Case No 080/2005), Final Award, 26 March 2008 . . . 19, 40, 130,177

Lone Pine Resources Inc v Canada (ICSID Case No UNCT/15/2), Counter-Memorial of the Government of Canada, 24 July 2015 30

Luigiterzo Bosca v Lithuania (PCA Case No 2011-05), Award, 17 May 2013 2, 131

M Meerapfel Söhne AG v Central African Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/07/10), Arbitral Award, 12 May 2011 92

Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344 51

Malone v UK App No 8691/79 (ECHR, 17 December 1982) 51

Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe SA v Albania (ICSID Case No ARB/11/24), Award, 30 March 2015 .

Marvin Feldman v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1), Award, 16 December 2002 .

15, 133, 135, 146–8

45, 61, 107, 133, 157–8, 185

Masson and van Zon v Netherlands App No 15346/89 (ECHR, Judgment of 28 September 1995)

111, 114, 115

Mesa Power Group LLC v Canada (PCA Case No 2012-17), Canada’s Observations on the Award on Jurisdiction and Merits in Clayton/Bilcon v Canada, 14 May 2015 25

Mesa Power LLC v Canada (PCA Case No 2012-17), Second Submission of the United States of America, 12 June 2015 30

Metalclad Corporation v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1), Award, 30 August 2000 44

Metalpar SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/5), Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006 146

Metal-Tech Ltd v Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No ARB/10/3), Award, 4 October 2013

122, 141, 150–1, 160

Methanex Corporation v USA (UNCITRAL), Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005

Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/99/6), Award, 12 April 2002 .

20, 45, 53, 81, 88, 152–3, 170

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA) (1986)

ICJ Rep 14 123

Mobil Investments Canada Inc v Canada (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/4), Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum, 22 May 2012 107 Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co v Libya (ad hoc), Final Arbitral Award, 22 March 2013 95

MTD Equity Sdn Bhd v Chile (ICSID Case No ARB/01/7), Award, 25 May 2004 27

MTD Equity Sdn Bhd v Chile (ICSID Case No ARB/01/7), Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007.

Mytilineos Holdings SA v Serbia and Montenegro (UNCITRAL), Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 8 September 2006

107

146, 181

Nations Energy Inc v Panama (ICSID Case No ARB/06/19), Award, 24 November 2010 45

Nemec v Slovakia App No 48672/99 (ECHR, 15 November 2001) 76 Noble Ventures Inc v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/01/11), Award, 12 October 2005 31, 35, 40, 178–9

Occidental Petroleum Corporation v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11), Award, 5 October 2012 79–80, 88, 92, 125, 135, 191, 194

Occidental Petroleum Corporation v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11), Decision on Annulment of the Award, 2 November 2015 .

Occidental Petroleum Corporation v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11), Dissenting Opinion, 20 September 2012 . . . . . . . . . . .

80, 81

OI European Group BV v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/11/25), Award, 10 March 2015. . . . . . . 55

Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/8), Award, 11 September 2007 45

Patrick Mitchell v DRC (ICSID Case No ARB/99/7), Award, 9 February 2004 85

Patrick Mitchell v DRC (ICSID Case No ARB/99/7), Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, 1 November 2006 121

Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France (France v Brazil) Series A No 21 (1929) 110, 140, 171, 185

Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France (France v Serbia) Series A No 20 (1929) 114

Perenco Ecuador Ltd v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/08/6), Decision on Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and on Liability, 12 September 2014 .

Perenco Ecuador Ltd v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/08/6), Interim Decision on the Environmental Counterclaim, 11 August 2015. .

Petrobart Ltd v Kyrgyzstan (SCC), Award, 29 March 2005.

Philippines v China (PCA Case No 2013-19), Award, 12 July 2016.

106

104

124

Phoenix Action Ltd v Czech Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/06/5), Award, 15 April 2009 127, 141, 161

Plama Consortium Ltd v Bulgaria (ICSID Case No ARB/03/24), Award, 27 August 2008 141, 149, 157, 172–3, 184

Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award in Respect of Damages, 31 May 2002 91

Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada (UNCITRAL), Interim Award, 26 June 2000 45

PSEG Global Inc v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/02/5), Award, 19 January 2007 .

. 22, 24, 31, 40, 170, 178

PSEG Global Inc v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/02/5), Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 June 2004

Quasar de Valores SICAV SA v Russia (SCC), Award, 20 July 2012 . . .

24, 186

15, 61, 159, 196

Quiborax SA v Bolivia (ICSID Case No ARB/06/2), Award, 16 September 2015 21, 45, 49, 84, 86, 88, 120, 134

Quiborax SA v Bolivia (ICSID Case No ARB/06/2), Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012 145–6, 150, 155, 184, 188

Quiborax SA v Bolivia (ICSID Case No ARB/06/2), Partially Dissenting Opinion of Brigitte Stern, 7 September 2015 67

Railroad Development Corporation v Guatemala (ICSID Case No ARB/07/23), Second Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 18 May 2010.

155

Renée Rose Levy de Levi v Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/10/17), Award, 26 February 2014 . . . . . . . . . 43

Robert Azinian v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/2), Award, 1 November 1999.

Roche v United Kingdom App No 32555/96 (ECHR, Judgment of 19 October 2005) .

107, 128, 132

111

Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 3 September 2001 . . . 35, 40, 170, 186

RosInvestCo UK Ltd v Russia (SCC Case No V 079/2005), Final Award, 12 September 2010 60, 62,159

RSM Production Corporation v Grenada (ICSID Case No ARB/05/14), Decision on RSM Production Corporation’s Application for a Preliminary Ruling of 29 October 2009 123

Rumeli Telekom AS v Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No ARB/05/16), Award, 29 July 2008 31, 140–2, 145–6

Saba Fakes v Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/07/20), Award, 14 July 2010 .

Salduz v Turkey App No 36391/02 (ECHR, 27 November 2008) .

. . . . 135, 143, 148, 190

Salini Costruttori SpA v Morocco (ICSID Case No ARB/00/4), Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001 .

Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award, 17 March 2006.

181

31, 43, 64, 143, 184

SAUR International SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/04/4), Award, 22 May 2014

SAUR International SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/04/4), Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012 141

SD Myers v Canada (UNCITRAL), Second Partial Award, 21 October 2002 71

Sempra Energy International v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/02/16), Award, 28 September 2007 33, 39

Sergei Paushok v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 28 April 2011 19, 156

Seventhsun Holding Ltd v Poland (SCC Case No V 2012/138), Partial Award, 13 October 2015

SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/02/6), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004. .

131

Siag v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/05/15), Award, 1 June 2009 . . . . . .14, 24, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57, 152, 154, 184

Silver v UK App No 5947/72 (ECHR, 25 March 1983) .

154

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/84/3), Award on the Merits, 20 May 1992 60, 87

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/84/3), Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 April 1988 108

Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/17), Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken, 30 July 2010 30, 76

SwemBalt AB v Latvia (UNCITRAL), Decision by the Court of Arbitration, 23 October 2000

Swisslion DOO Skopje v Macedonia (ICSID Case No ARB/09/16), Award, 6 July 2012

61,87–8, 90, 156

134, 187–8, 191

Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/2), Award, 29 May 2003

Teinver SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/09/1), Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012 144, 160

Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Judgment on the Merits [1962] ICJ Rep 6 158

Tenaris SA and Talta – Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal LDA v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/11/26), Award, 29 January 2016 49 The Rompetrol Group NV v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/06/3), Award, 6 May 2013 95 Tidewater Investment SRL v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/5), Award, 13 March 2015 67 Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/02/18), Award, 26 July 2007 .

142, 143, 146, 147, 149, 150

Total SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/04/1), Concurring Opinion of Luis Herrera Marcano, 12 December 2010

14, 30

Total SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/04/1), Decision on Liability, 27 December 2010 . . . . 108 Trail Smelter Case (US v Canada) RIAA Volume III (1941) 1905 .

105

United States: Anti-Dumping Act of 1916—Report of the Panel (31 March 2000) WT/DS136/R 111

United States: Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany—Report of the Appellate Body (28 November 2002) WT/DS213/AB/R 116

United States: Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974—Report of the Panel (22 December 1999) WT/DS152/R 133

Vannessa Ventures Ltd v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/6), Award, 16 January 2013 .

54, 139, 144, 146, 150

Venezuela Holdings BV v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/07/27), Award, 9 October 2014 .

Vestey Group Ltd v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/06/4), Award, 15 April 2016

Vigotop Ltd v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/11/22), Award, 1 October 2014 .

Vincent Ryan v Poland (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/11/3), Award, 24 November 2015

Vito Gallo v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award, 15 September 2011

56, 67, 84

131, 191

104

134, 186–7,191

Walter Bau AG (in liquidation) v Thailand (UNCITRAL), Award, 1 July 2009 191

Waste Management Inc v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3), Award, 30 April 2004 26

Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/98/4), Award, 8 December 2000 20, 88, 181

Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/98/4), Decision on Annulment, 28 January 2002 89

White Industries Australia Ltd v India (UNCITRAL), Final Award, 30 November 2011 28, 75, 174

William Clayton v Canada (PCA Case No 2009-04), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015.

25, 29, 38, 40

William Clayton v Canada (PCA Case No 2009-04), Dissenting Opinion of Professor Donald McRae, 10 March 2015

William Nagel v Czech Republic (SCC), Final Award, 9 September 2003

25, 30, 38

170, 188–9

World Duty Free Company Ltd v Kenya (ICSID Case No ARB/00/7), Award, 4 October 2006 63, 160

X v Austria App No 19010/07 (ECHR, Judgment of 19 February 2013) 111, 115

X v United Kingdom App No 6840/74 (ECHR, Decision on Admissibility of 12 May 1977) 111

Yukos Universal Ltd v Russia (PCA Case No AA 227), Final Award, 18 July 2014 92, 141, 159

Introduction

During the 1990s, the Republic of Hungary adopted a range of policies designed to attract foreign investment. As part of this, in 1997, Hungary conducted a tender for the operation of two national commercial FM radio stations. Following the tender, broadcasting licences for the two stations were awarded separately to two foreign investors. The investors operated the stations with some degree of success until 2009, when the licences were due for renewal. In a 2009 tender process, however, the investors failed to have their licences renewed, despite enjoying what they viewed as a legally guaranteed incumbent operator advantage. Instead, the licences were transferred to inexperienced new operators with close ties to the ruling political party. Concern over the tender process, and over later changes in Hungary’s media laws, was expressed by a range of countries and organizations, including the European Union, the Council of Europe, various European states, Japan, and the United States.1

Affronted by the 2009 tender outcome, in October 2011 the investors lodged notices of arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID), relying on the UK–Hungary, Netherlands–Hungary, and Switzerland–Hungary bilateral investment treaties (BITs). According to the investors, the ‘scandalously flawed’ tender process amounted to an unlawful expropriation of their investment in Hungary, violating the BITs and deserving compensation.2 Two separate tribunals were constituted to hear the claims. In April 2014 and 2015, the two tribunals rendered their final decisions on each claim. Both tribunals hinted that the investors had a reasonable case on the merits, and that Hungary’s conduct left much to be desired.3 However, both tribunals rejected jurisdiction over the claims, and the investors received no compensation.

As a dispute brought under treaties relating to rights granted in international law, the radio investors’ claims were largely governed by international law. However, despite the international framework of the dispute, unavoidable and crucial questions of domestic (Hungarian) law lay at the heart of the expropriation claim. As one of the tribunals observed, an investor cannot be expropriated

1 Emmis International Holding BV (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2), Award, 16 April 2014 [42]–[44]; Accession Mezzanine Capital LP v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/3), Award, 17 April 2015 [55].

2 Emmis International Holding BV v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2), Request for Arbitration, 28 October 2011 [3]

3 Emmis (n 1) [261]; Accession Mezzanine (n 1) [190], [200].

Domestic Law in International Investment Arbitration. First Edition. Jarrod Hepburn. © Jarrod Hepburn 2017. Published 2017 by Oxford University Press.

if it has no property in the first place.4 Importantly, whether or not the investors had any property required a determination of whether Hungarian law granted a property right in the outcome, or the process, of the 2009 tender (as the investors had argued). Applying Hungarian law, the tribunals in both cases ruled that, while the investors might have been well placed to win the tender, and while they had a right to expect the tender to be conducted fairly and transparently, they had no property rights that could have been expropriated by Hungary. Because of this fundamental question of domestic law, the tribunals denied jurisdiction, and the investors’ claims failed.5

The investors’ claim of expropriation under BITs governed by international law, then, ultimately depended almost entirely on the answer to a question of Hungarian domestic law.6 This scenario is not by any means unusual. The Hungarian radio investor cases are only one instance of a commonplace phenomenon in international investment law: claims made under BITs, ostensibly governed by international law, depend in various respects on questions of domestic law.7 Such questions include the attribution of conduct to the state, the nationality of an investor, the existence of property rights under host state law, the breach of an ‘umbrella’ clause, and an investor’s compliance with domestic law when making an investment.8 All these questions call for consideration of the law of the host state in order to resolve some issue relevant for the remainder of the international law claim.

In spite of the significant role of domestic law, however, much of the academic discussion in the field of investment law has concentrated on questions of international law. Several authors have examined the meaning of the guarantee of ‘fair

4 Emmis (n 1) [159].

5 As the Emmis tribunal observed (at [144]), the cases might well have ended differently if the relevant BITs had included consent to arbitration over alleged breaches of another common investment treaty protection, the fair and equitable treatment standard. This standard would not require the strict proof of property rights called for by an expropriation claim. Other cases relating to flawed tender processes, such as Lemire v Ukraine or Bosca v Lithuania, have indeed succeeded on claims of breach of fair and equitable treatment.

6 The term ‘domestic law’ in this book is considered to be equivalent to the potential alternatives of ‘municipal law’, ‘local law’, ‘internal law’, or ‘national law’. While J Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, OUP 2012) 48, considers the various terms to have ‘slightly different connotations’, this book treats the terms as interchangeable, as do HE Kjos, Applicable Law in Investor-State Arbitration: The Interplay between National and International Law (OUP 2013) 14, and G Cook, A Digest of WTO Jurisprudence on Public International Law Concepts and Principles (CUP 2015) 187. The intention is to encompass all products of a state’s legal system, including laws adopted at federal, state/provincial, or city/municipality levels, as well as judicial precedents where these constitute a source of law, as in common law systems.

7 The general problem of interaction between domestic law and international law in international courts and tribunals is certainly not a new one. For instance, CW Jenks, ‘The Interpretation and Application of Municipal Law by the Permanent Court of International Justice’ (1938) 19 BYIL 67, describes many situations in which the PCIJ was, or might have been, required to apply municipal law.

8 See, e.g., A Newcombe and L Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer 2009) 92–5; C McLachlan, L Shore and M Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (OUP 2007) 69–70, 182–4; M Sasson, Substantive Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Unsettled Relationship between International and Municipal Law (Kluwer 2010) xxviii–xxx.

and equitable treatment’ commonly found in investment treaties.9 The definition of indirect or regulatory expropriation in international law has been extensively analysed.10 Other writers have delved into controversies over the extension of the most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause to dispute settlement,11 or over the scope of the ‘necessity’ defence (which has been relevant in many claims against the Republic of Argentina).12 More recent literature has turned to the utility of proportionality arguments,13 the role of human rights in investment arbitration,14 and the potential for a doctrine of ‘margin of appreciation’ to assist arbitrators in balancing the public and private interests that are often in tension in investment treaty disputes.15 Meanwhile, the place of domestic law in these highly charged, sensitive arbitrations

9 M Paparinskis, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (OUP 2013); A Diehl, The Core Standard of International Investment Protection: Fair and Equitable Treatment (Kluwer 2012); R Kläger, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in International Investment Law (CUP 2011); I Tudor, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment (OUP 2008).

10 S López Escarcena, Indirect Expropriation in International Law (Edward Elgar 2014); J Dalhuisen and A Guzman, ‘Expropriatory and Non-Expropriatory Takings under International Investment Law’ (2012) UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper 2137107 <ssrn.com/abstract=2137107>; T Gazzini, ‘Drawing the Line between Non-Compensable Regulatory Powers and Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment: An Economic Analysis of Law Perspective’ (2010) 7 Manchester J Intl Econ L 36; Y Fortier and S Drymer, ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review 293.

11 Z Douglas, ‘The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation off the Rails’ (2011) 2 JIDS 97; K Hobér, ‘MFN Clauses and Dispute Resolution in Investment Treaties: Have We Reached the End of the Road?’ in C Binder and others, International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (OUP 2009); Y Radi, ‘The Application of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause to the Dispute Settlement Provisions of Bilateral Investment Treaties: Domesticating the “Trojan Horse” ’ (2007) 18 EJIL 757.

12 K Chubb, ‘The State of Necessity Defense: A Burden, Not a Blessing to the International Investment Arbitration System’ (2013) 14 Cardozo J Conflict Resolution 532; A Kent and A Harrington, ‘The Plea of Necessity under Customary International Law: A Critical Review in Light of the Argentine Cases’ in C Brown and K Miles (eds), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (CUP 2011); A Reinisch, ‘Necessity in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 41 NYIL 137.

13 G Bücheler, Proportionality in Investor-State Arbitration (OUP 2015); C Henckels, Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration (CUP 2015); E Leonhardsen, ‘Looking for Legitimacy: Exploring Proportionality Analysis in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2012) 3 JIDS 95; A Stone Sweet, ‘Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality’s New Frontier’ (2010) 4 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 47.

14 LW Mouyal, International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate: A Human Rights Perspective (Routledge 2016); J Calamita, ‘International Human Rights and the Interpretation of International Investment Treaties: Constitutional Considerations’ in F Baetens (ed.), Investment Law within International Law: Integrationist Perspectives (CUP 2013); E de Brabandere, ‘Human Rights Considerations in International Investment Arbitration’ in M Fitzmaurice and P Merkouris (eds), The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention of Human Rights: Legal and Practical Implications (Martinus Nijhoff 2012); B Simma, ‘Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights?’ (2011) 60 ICLQ 573; T Nelson, ‘Human Rights Law and BIT Protection: Areas of Convergence’ (2011) 12 JWIT 27; PM Dupuy, EU Petersmann, and F Francioni (eds), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (OUP 2009); J Fry, ‘International Human Rights Law in Investment Arbitration: Evidence of International Law’s Unity’ (2007) 18 Duke J Comp & Intl L 77.

15 C Henckels, ‘Balancing Investment Protection and the Public Interest: The Role of the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2013) 4 JIDS 197; A Katselas, ‘Do Investment Treaties Prescribe a Deferential Standard of Review?’ (2012) 34 Mich J Intl L 87; A Roberts, ‘The Next Battleground: Standards of Review in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2011) 16 ICCA Congress Series

has received somewhat less attention, notwithstanding its frequent centrality to the outcome of the case (as the Hungarian radio investors’ claims show).

At first glance, it might not be surprising that questions of domestic law are largely ignored by commentators. With more than one hundred states having now faced at least one investment treaty claim,16 commentators in the global environment of international law are keen to focus on issues of common importance across the claims rather than the peculiarities of one hundred legal systems. This will naturally mean a focus on the portions of tribunals’ awards that relate to issues of international law. The substance of Polish law might have been highly relevant to Dutch insurance firm Eureko’s 2005 claim against Poland, for instance,17 but scholars may not see how its relevance would extend to other investment treaty claims.18 The substance of domestic law might be significant for individual disputes, but it is not necessarily significant for the system of investment arbitration.

As will be explained further below, however, the concern of this book is not with the substance of domestic law in host states around the world. Rather, the book’s first concern is with the range of situations in which domestic law is relevant in an investment arbitration. The book’s second concern is with the process and methodology used by international arbitrators to determine the substance of domestic law when necessary to resolve an international law claim. These two process questions—of when, and how, tribunals should deal with domestic law issues— have significant ramifications. Both questions relate to the appropriate interaction between domestic and international law in this area. As the next section explains, disagreement over this interaction plays a large role in the ‘legitimacy crisis’ currently said to be plaguing investment arbitration.

1.1 Legitimacy and the ‘Backlash’ against Investment Arbitration

Tensions between domestic prerogatives and international oversight are at the heart both of historical doctrines on the treatment of aliens and of modern investment treaty arbitration. For most of the twentieth century, debates over the customary international law on foreign investment centred on the existence of an international

170; W Burke-White and A von Staden, ‘Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations’ (2010) 35 Yale JIL 283.

16 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016 (UN 2016) 104.

17 See Eureko BV v Poland (ad hoc), Partial Award, 19 August 2005; for analysis of the domestic law aspects, see Z Douglas, ‘Nothing If Not Critical for Investment Treaty Arbitration: Occidental, Eureko and Methanex’ (2006) 22 Arb Intl 27.

18 Apart from further claims against Poland in respect of the same domestic legal measures. Certainly, many cases against Argentina have related to the same legal measures taken by that state at the height of its 2001 financial crisis. For background, see, e.g., W Burke-White, ‘The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System’ in M Waibel and others (eds), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration (Kluwer 2010).

minimum standard of treatment of aliens. Capital-exporting countries, keen to protect the interests of their nationals abroad, argued that such a universal standard existed and that all states were bound to accord it to aliens conducting business within them. Other countries, largely Latin American ones, argued that foreigners in a host state could expect no better treatment than the standards that were accorded by domestic law to locals in that state.19

More recently, this Latin American position, the so-called ‘Calvo Doctrine’,20 appeared to have been rejected, with the emergence of the extensive BIT network. Apart from enshrining an international minimum standard in their provisions, BITs also eschew the usual international law requirement to exhaust local remedies in the host state before pursuing an international remedy.21 This would seem to deny the relevance of domestic standards and place the analysis firmly on the international plane.

However, in recent years many writers have questioned the legitimacy of the new investment treaty regime.22 Although the bases for the criticisms are varied, one common theme among them relates to a perceived failure of investment tribunals to pay sufficient attention to domestic policy concerns.23 Thus, when interpreting investment treaties, arbitrators have in some cases privileged the treaties’ narrow objectives of foreign investor protection, while downplaying other broader domestic objectives of sustainable development and general welfare.24 Writers have noted the typical absence of health or environmental exceptions in investment treaties, unlike in the frequently compared World Trade Organization (WTO) system.25 Some have expressed concern over tribunals’ narrow interpretations of the exceptions that do exist, such as the ‘necessity’ exception.26 Similar concerns are seen regarding the effects of wide interpretations of the substantive investor protections.27 Other authors (and even courts) have commented on the discrimination

19 See generally Newcombe and Paradell (n 8) ch. 1.

20 See generally D Shea, The Calvo Clause: A Problem of Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1955); W Shan, ‘From “North-South Divide” to “Private-Public Debate”: Revival of the Calvo Doctrine and the Changing Landscape in International Investment Law’ (2007) 27 Northwestern J Intl L and Bus 631.

21 R Dolzer and C Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (2nd edn, OUP 2012) 264–7.

22 See generally Waibel (n 18) and sources cited at D Desierto, ‘Human Rights and Investment in Economic Emergencies: Conflict of Treaties, Interpretation, Valuation Decisions’ (Third Biennial Global Conference of the Society of International Economic Law, Singapore, July 2012) fns 12–15 <ssrn.com/abstract=2101795>.

23 J Alvarez, ‘The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment’ (2009) 344 RdC 193, 246–252; S Spears, ‘The Quest for Policy Space in a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’ (2010) 13 JIEL 1037; M Sornarajah, Resistance and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment (CUP 2015). For a more supportive view of the system’s legitimacy, see, e.g., D Krishan, ‘Thinking About BITs and BIT Arbitration: The Legitimacy Crisis That Never Was’ in T Weiler and F Baetens (eds), New Directions in International Economic Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2011).

24 Newcombe and Paradell (n 8) 64.

25 A Newcombe, ‘General Exceptions in International Investment Agreements’ in MC Cordonier Segger, M Gehring, and A Newcombe (eds), Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Kluwer 2011) 357.

26 A Bjorklund, ‘The Necessity of Sustainable Development’ in Cordonier Segger, Gehring, and Newcombe (n 25).

27 Alvarez (n 23) 248.

inherent in granting relatively strong protections to foreign investors under international law while leaving domestic investors with often weaker protections under local law.28

Some commentators have developed sophisticated critiques of the reasoning of investment tribunals underpinned by democratic and political theory.29 Andreas von Staden, for instance, has argued that principles of normative subsidiarity should push international investment tribunals to show significant degrees of deference to the decisions of host states before responsibility can be found for breach of an investment treaty.30 Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke question the democratic legitimacy of international adjudicators, and suggest their re-orientation towards the ‘cosmopolitan citizen’.31 Gus van Harten has advocated comprehensive reform of the system based on the view that investment tribunals perform roles analogous to domestic courts in judicial review actions, and should therefore be bound by similar standards of review and notions of deference to the decisions of the (domestic) political branches.32 A range of other authors, including Stephan Schill and Benedict Kingsbury, have emphasized the role of investment tribunals in global governance, with arbitrators ruling on the public law obligations of states under broadly worded standards; these authors call for appropriate standards of review and deference to fit with that role.33

Despite being the original authors of BITs and facilitating instruments such as the ICSID Convention, states themselves have taken many of these criticisms to heart. Countries including South Africa, Ecuador, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Bolivia have withdrawn from the ICSID Convention and/or terminated existing investment treaties.34 Venezuela, Argentina, and Zimbabwe have refused to pay many awards rendered against them.35 Australia resolved to exclude the mechanism

28 V Lowe, ‘Changing Dimensions of International Investment Law’ (2007) Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4/2007, 48–9 <ssrn.com/abstract=970727>; M Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (3rd edn, CUP 2010) 338; Colombian Constitutional Court, Case No C-358/96 <www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/1996/C-358-96.htm>. See also A de Mestral and R Morgan, Does Canadian Law Provide Remedies Equivalent to NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration? (CIGI 2016).

29 See generally Roberts (n 15).

30 A von Staden, ‘Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review Beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review’ (2012) 10 ICON 1023; Burke-White and von Staden (n 15). Nollkaemper has made a similar subsidiarity-based argument in respect of the relations between the ICJ and domestic law, suggesting that ‘national authorities are better positioned [than international bodies] to assess the factual and legal context of a dispute’: A Nollkaemper, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice’ (2006) 5 Chinese JIL 301, 318.

31 A von Bogdandy and I Venzke, ‘In Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and its Democratic Justification’ (2012) 23 EJIL 7.

32 G van Harten, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (OUP 2007).

33 B Kingsbury and S Schill, ‘Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law’ (2009) IILJ Working Paper 2009/6 <www.iilj.org/publications/documents/2009-6.KingsburySchill.pdf>. See also Dolzer and Schreuer (n 21) 24–5.

34 Sornarajah (n 23) 1. Various EU states have also terminated (intra-EU) BITs, although not necessarily out of dissatisfaction with the system: UNCTAD (n 16) 102.

35 J Dahlquist and LE Peterson, ‘Analysis: As Venezuela’s ICSID Debt Hits $4.6 Billion (Before Interest), Two Ad Hoc Committees Offer Differing Approaches to Requests that Stays of Enforcement Be Lifted’ (2016) 9(10) Investment Arbitration Reporter <tinyurl.com/hwebcbs>; LE Peterson,

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

Spanish gold. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 2) 2 reels. © 11Sep47; L1247. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591423.

R591424.

Buckaroo from Powder River. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 6 reels. © 14Oct47; L1248. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591424.

R591425.

Sweet Genevieve. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 21Oct47; L1249. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591425.

R591426.

Two blondes and a redhead. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 21Oct47; L1253. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591426.

R591427.

The Lone Wolf in London. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 21Oct47; L1259. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591427.

R591428.

The Mystery of the map. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 3) 2 reels. © 18Sep47; L1267. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591428.

R591429.

Menaced by Ryaks. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 4) 2 reels. © 25Sep47; L1272. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591429.

R591430.

Captain Silver’s strategy. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 5) 2 reels. © 2Oct47; L1278. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591430.

R591431.

The Sea Hound at bay. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 6) 2 reels. © 9Oct47; L1300. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591431.

R591432.

Rand’s treachery. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 7) 2 reels. © 16Oct47; L1310. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591432.

R591433.

In the admiral’s lair. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 8) 2 reels. © 23Oct47; L1320. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591433.

R591434.

On the water wheel. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 9) 2 reels. © 30Oct47; L1340. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591434.

R591484.

King-size canary. By Loew’s, Inc. 1 reel. © 19Nov47; L1337. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591484.

R591488.

Mighty Mouse in A Date for dinner. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 29Aug47; L1261. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74;

R591488.

R591489.

Mighty Mouse in A Fight to the finish. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 14Nov47; L1447. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591489.

R591490.

Heckle and Jeckle, the talking magpies, in The Super salesman. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 24Oct47; L1448. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591490.

R591491.

The Talking magpies in Flying south. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 15Aug47; L1449. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591491.

R591492.

Heckle and Jeckle, the talking magpies, in Fishing by the sea. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 19Sep47; L1450. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591492.

R591493.

Mighty Mouse in The First snow. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 10Oct47; L1459. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591493.

R591494.

One note Tony. By Terry-Toons, Inc. 1 reel. © 22Oct47; L1628. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 22Nov74; R591494. R591573.

Bowery buckaroos. By Monogram Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 22Nov47; L1285. Warner Brothers, Inc. (PWH); 25Nov74; R591573.

R591703.

R591704.

R591746.

Pirates of Monterey. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 8 reels. © 17Nov47; LP420. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591746.

R591747.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 88. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 4Nov47; M2480. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591747.

R591748.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 89. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 6Nov47; M2528. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591748.

R591749.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 90. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 11Nov47; M2529. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591749.

R591750.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 91. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 13Nov47; M2530. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591750.

R591751.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 92. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 18Nov47; M2531. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591751.

R591752.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 93. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 20Nov47; M2660. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591752.

R591753.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 94. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 25Nov47; M2661. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591753.

R591754.

Universal international newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 95. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 27Nov47; M2662. Universal Pictures (PWH); 29Nov74; R591754.

R591818.

Paramount news, number 25. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 22Nov47; M2546. Major News Library (PWH); 26Nov74; R591818.

R591845.

Beauty and the beast. By Andre Paulve. Add. ti: La Belle et la bete. 10 reels. © 1Dec46; L1722. Janus Films, Inc. (PWH); 15Nov74; R591845.

R591937.

Chiquita Banana’s reception. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 9Aug47; M3749. United Brands Company (PWH); 29Nov74; R591937.

R592080.

Chiquita Banana convinces the cannibal. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 2Oct47; M3745. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; P592080.

R592081.

Chiquita Banana’s school for brides. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 2Oct47; M3746. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592081.

R592082.

Chiquita Banana on the air. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 2Oct47; M3747. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592082. R592083.

Chiquita Banana makes a better breakfast. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 2Oct47; M3748. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; 8592083.

R592084.

Chiquita Banana on television. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 9Aug47; M3750. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592084.

R592085.

Chiquita Banana helps the pie man. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 27Oct47; M3751. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592085.

R592086.

Chiquita Banana’s fan. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 27Oct47; M3752. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592086.

R592087.

Chiquita Banana’s star attraction. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 27Oct47; M3753. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592087.

R592088.

Chiquita Banana goes north. By John Sutherland Productions, Inc. 3 min. © 27Oct47; M3755. United Brands Company (PWH); 5Dec74; R592088.

R592179.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 217. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 5Nov47; M2608. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592179.

R592180.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 218. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 7Nov47; M2609. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592180.

R592181.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 219. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 12Nov47; M2610. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592181.

R592182.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 220. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 14Nov47; M2611. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592182.

R592183.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 221. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 19Nov47; M2612. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592183.

R592184.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 222. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 21Nov47; M2613. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592184.

R592185.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 223. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 26Nov47; M2614. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592185.

R592186.

News of the day. Vol. 19, issue no. 224. By Hearst Metrotone News, Inc. 1 reel. © 28Nov47; M2615. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 9Dec74; R592186.

R592268.

G Men never forget. Chap. no. 7–12. By Republic Productions, Inc. 2 reels each. © 21Nov47; L1384. Repix, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R592268.

R592644.

Paramount news, number 26. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 26Nov47; M2547. Major News Library (PWH); 6Dec74; R592644.

R592645.

Paramount news, number 27. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 29Nov47; M2576. Major News Library (PWH); 6Dec74; R592645.

R592646.

Paramount news, number 28. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 3Dec47; M2577. Major News Library (PWH); 6Dec74; R592646.

R592812.

That Hagen girl. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 9 reels. © 1Nov47; L1282. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592812.

R592813.

Escape me never. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 12 reels. © 22Nov47; L1305. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592813.

R592814.

Safari so good. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 7Nov47; L1329. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592814.

R592815.

Mexican joy ride. By Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 30Nov47; M2538. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592815.

R592816.

A Horse fly fleas. By Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 30Nov47; M2549. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592816.

R592817.

Doggone cats. By The Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 30Nov47; M3016. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 6Dec74; R592817.

R592891.

Paramount news, number 29. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 6Dec47; M2579. Major News Library (PWH); 12Dec74; R592891.

R592892.

Paramount news, number 30. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 10Dec47; M2580. Major News Library (PWH); 12Dec74; R592892.

R592965.

R592966.

R593022.

Where there’s life. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 8 reels. © 21Nov47; L1313. Emka Division of Universal City Studios, Inc. (PWH); 9Dec74; R593022.

R593023.

Golden earrings. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 10 reels. © 31Oct47; L1333. Emka Division of Universal City Studios, Inc. (PWH); 9Dec74; R593023.

R593268.

Take my life. By Independent Producers, Ltd. 8 reels. © 3Dec47; L1527. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593268.

R593269.

I know where I’m going. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 11 reels. © 11Dec47; L1675. Rank Film Distributors. Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593269.

R593270.

Bush Christmas. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 8 reels, © 11Dec47; L1922. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593270.

R593271.

This happy breed. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 12 reels. © 11Dec47; L1962. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593271.

R593272.

Tawny Pipit. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 9 reels, 11Dec47; L1979. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593272.

R593273.

Captain Boycott. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 11 reels. 11Dec47; L2063. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593273.

R593274.

My brother’s keeper. By Gainsborough Pictures, Ltd. 8 reels. © 3Dec47; L2537. Rank Film Distributors, Ltd. (PWH); 18Dec74; R593274.

R593275.

R593433.

Paramount news, number 31. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 13Dec47; M2593. Major News Library (PWH); 17Dec74; R593433.

R593681.

Blondie in the dough. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 29Sep47; L1214. King Features Syndicate, a division of the Hearst Corporation (PWH); 16Dec74; R593681.

R593725.

R593727.

R593729.

R59373O.

R593731.

R593732.

Vacation magic. (Movietone sports review) 1 reel. © 26Sep47; M2622. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593732.

R593733.

R593734.

Album of animals. (Lew Lehr’s dribble-puss parade) 8 min. © 21Nov47; M2697. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593734.

R593735.

R593736.

R593737.

R593738.

R593739.

R593740.

R593741.

R593742.

R593743.

R593744.

Copenhagen pageantry. (Movietone adventures) 1 reel. © 6Dec47; M2982. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593744.

R593745.

Aqua capers. (Movietone’s sports review) 1 reel. © 22Nov47; M2998. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593745.

R593746.

Home of the Danes. (Ed Thorgersen’s Movietone adventures) 1 reel. © 17Oct47; M3010. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593746.

R593747.

Jungle closeups. (Movietone adventures) 1 reel. © 12Dec47; M3011. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 19Dec74; R593747.

R593748.

R593749.

R593750.

R593901.

Last days of Boot Hill. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 6 reels. © 20Nov47; L1298. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593901.

R593902.

It had to be you. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 10 reels. © 25Nov47; L1299. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593902.

R593903.

The Crime doctor’s gamble. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 19Nov47; L1302. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593903.

R593904.

Six-gun law. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 6 reels. © 26Nov47; L1316. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593904.

R593905.

R593906.

On the treasure trail. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 10) 2 reels. © 6Nov47; L1349. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; P593906.

R593907.

Sea Hound attacked. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 11) 2 reels. © 13Nov47; L1367. Columbia Pictures

Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593907.

R593908.

Dangerous waters. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 12) 2 reels. © 20Nov47; L1368. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593908.

R593909.

The Panther’s prey. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. (The Sea Hound, chap. 13) 2 reels. © 27Nov47; L1386. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 23Dec74; R593909.

R594065.

The Law comes to Gunsight. By Monogram Pictures Corporation. 6 reels. © 22May47; L1044. Allied Artists Pictures Corporation formerly known as Monogram Pictures Corporation (PWH); 26Dec74; R594065.

R594066.

Sarge goes to college. By Monogram Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 23May47; L1082. Allied Artists Pictures Corporation formerly known as Monogram Pictures Corporation (PWH); 26Dec74; R594066.

R594147.

Paramount news, number 32. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 17Dec47; M2594. Major News Library (PWH); 26Dec74; R594147.

R594148.

Paramount news, number 33. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 20Dec47; M2648. Major News Library (PWH); 26Dec74; R594148.

R594149.

Paramount news, number 34. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. © 24Dec47; M2649. Major News Library (PWH); 26Dec74; R594149.

R594212.

R594213.

R594214.

٭ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975 O-588-418

These entries alone may not reflect the complete Copyright Office record pertaining to a particular work. Contact the U.S. Copyright Office for information about any additional records that may exist.

MP25712

MP25719

Changed From Changed To

Clever Hikcichi

Southern California California Permanente Medical Group

Clever Hikoichi

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

MP26079 Stan Brakhage Stan Brakhage R567077 Terry Toons Terry-Toons

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Corrected spelling, accents, grammar, hyphenation, and punctuation of names according to the following guidelines.

The names of movies in the main Motion Pictures list determined usage unless all the Index entries indicate otherwise. See change list.

The names of individuals and companies featured in the Index listing determined usage unless all of the Motion Pictures entries indicated otherwise. See change list.

2. Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors of other than names of movies, persons, and companies as mentioned previously.

3. Otherwise retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.