Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
Iuris Dictio

Monográfica

Núm. 22 (2018)

Repensar el requisito de realizar una inversión en concordancia con el derecho doméstico como derecho sustantivo y pretensión accionable para los Estados bajo los BITs

  • Félix Antolín Martínez
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v22i22.1188
Enviado
julio 15, 2018
Publicado
2018-12-13

Resumen

Este artículo desafía una de las nociones más tradicionales del Arbitraje Internacional de Inversiones: que los estados que reciben las inversiones no tienen derechos sustantivos bajo el sistema de los BITs. La tesis de este trabajo es que la actual red de BITs otorga a los Estados receptores un derecho sustantivo y así una pretensión accionable en Arbitraje Internacional de Inversiones. Este derecho emana del requisito consistente en que la inversión debe realizarse conforme al derecho del estado receptor. Existe una línea tanto de BITs como de casos seguidos en ICSID que sostiene que la exigencia de cumplimiento con el derecho del Estado receptor es autónoma, y que esta autonomía confiere un derecho sustantivo para los estados receptores consagrado en los BITs. Esta idea también se apoya en el espíritu y los objetivos tanto de la Convención de ICSID como de los BITs. viewed = 634 times

Citas

  1. Escobar, A. (2003). UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, module 2.5 5. Geneva: United Nations.
  2. Kahale, G. (2014). III, Keynote Speech during the Eight Annual Juris Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference. Washington, D.C.
  3. Kriebaum, U. (2010). Chapter V: Investment Arbitration. Illegal Investments. In C. Klausegger, P. Klein, et al. (eds.). Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2010. London: C.H. Beck, Stämpfi & Manz.
  4. Laborde, G. (2010). Te Case for Host State Claims in Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 97, 111-113.
  5. Newcombe, A. (2010). Te Question of Admissibility of Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  6. Rose-Ackerman, S. and Tobin, J. (2009). Do BITs Beneft Developing Countries? In C. A. Rogers and R. P. Alford (eds.). The Future of Investment Arbitration (pp. 131-143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Tawil, G. (2003). UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, module 2.616. Geneva: United Nations.
  8. Toral, M. and Schultz, T. (2009). Te State, a Perpetual Respondent in Investment Arbitration? Some Unorthodox Considerations. In M. Waibel et al. eds, The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration (pp. 577-578). London: Wolters Kluwer. Decisions ICSID (1978). Gabon v. Société Serete S.A., ICSID Case No. ARB/76/1.
  9. "” (1998). Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited v. Independent Power Tanzania Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/8, Final Award (2001).
  10. "” (2000). Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (2003), in 42 International Legal Materials 52, 57.
  11. "” (2003). Inceysa Vallisoletana, S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB 03/26, Award (English translation) 186 (2006).
  12. "” (2003). Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB 03/24, Award 138 (2008).
  13. "” (2005). Biwater Gauf (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award 310, 312-318 (2008).
  14. "” (2005). Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment (2009).
  15. "” (2006). Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award 100-105, 134 (2009).
  16. "” (2007). Government of the Province of East Kalimantan v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal "” others, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/3, Award on Jurisdiction (2009).
  17. "” (2008). Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador. ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5. Decision on Counterclaims (2017).
  18. "” (2008). Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Interim Decision on Environmental Counterclaim (2015).
  19. "” (2011). Caravelí Cotaruse Transmisora de Energía S.A.C. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/9, Final Award (2013).
  20. "” (2013). Republic of Peru v. Caravelí Cotaruse Transmisora de Energía S.A.C., ICSID Case No. ARB/13/24, Procedural Order Acknowledging the Discontinuance of the Proceedings (2013).
  21. Legislation:
  22. Government of the Czech Republic / Government of the State of Israel (1997). Agreement between the Government of the Czech Republic and the Government of the State of Israel for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments.
  23. Government of the Republic of Finland / Government of the Republic of Estonia (1993). Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the Republic of Estonia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Preamble.
  24. Federal Republic of Germany / Republic of Philippines (1998). Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Philippines for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Article 1.
  25. Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland / Government of the Republic of Indonesia (1977). Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Preamble.
  26. Republic of Peru / Kingdom of Spain (1994). Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Peru and the Kingdom of Spain, Article 1.
  27. Kingdom of Spain / Republic of El Salvador (1996). Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of El Salvador, Article 2.
  28. Kingdom of the Netherlands / Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (1992). Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Article 2.
  29. ICSID (2012). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Articles of Agreement, Article I.
  30. "” (2006). International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules 11.