Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Iuris Dictio

Monográfica

Núm. 22 (2018)

Abuse of law in international investment arbitration: The one who exercises his/her right, does it ofend anyone?

DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v22i22.1147
Submitted
June 21, 2018
Published
2018-12-13

Abstract

Recently, many international arbitral tribunals have dismissed investment claims based on the abuse of rights doctrine. The practice of investment tribunals reveals different situations, which may be considered as an abuse of rights practice in the future. This article examines the importance of applying in International Investment Arbitration as a way of avoiding abusive submissions. viewed = 883 times

References

  1. Alessandri, A. et al. (1998). Tratado de derecho civil - Parte Preliminar y General. Tomo I. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
  2. Ascensio, H. (2014). Abuse of Process in International Investment Arbitration. Chinese Journal of International Law, 13, 763-785.
  3. Bos, M. (1977) Te Recognized Manifestations of International Law. German Yearbook of International Law, 20, 9-76.
  4. Byers, M. (2002). Abuse of Rights: An Old Principle, A New Age. McGill Law Journal, 47, 389-431.
  5. Cuentas, E. (1997). El abuso del derecho. Derecho PUCP, Revista de la Facultad de Derecho, 51, 463-484.
  6. CIADI (2018). ICSID Caseload - Statistics, 1-10.
  7. De Brabandere, E. (2012). "Good Faith", "Abuse of Process" and the Initiation of Investment Treaty Claims. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3 (3), 1-28.
  8. Dong, A. X. (2015). Abuse of Process and Regulation in Commercial Arbitration - A Chinese Perspective. Journal of Arbitration Studies, 25 (3), 91-111.
  9. Ducci Claro, C. (2005). Derecho civil. Parte general. 4ta ed. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
  10. Gafney, J. P. (2010). Abuse of Process in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Te Journal of World Investment & Trade, 11 (4), 515-538.
  11. Gaillard, E. (2017). Abuse of Process in International Arbitration. ICSID Review, 1-21.
  12. Gamabaro, A. (1995). Te Abuse of Rights in the Civil Law Tradition. European Review of Private Law, 3, 561-570.
  13. Harris, C. (1992). Abuse of the Arbitration Process-Delaying Tactics and Disruptions: A Respondent"™s Guide. Journal of International Arbitration, 9 (2), 87-96.
  14. Josserand , L. (1927). De l"™esprit des droits et de leur relativité. Téorie dite de l"™abus des droits. París: Dalloz.
  15. Kolb. R. (2006). General Principles of Procedural Law, en A. Zimmermann et al. (eds). (2006) Te Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary (pp. 831-908). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Ripert, G. (1926). La règle morale dans les obligations civiles. Paris: L.G.D.J.
  17. "” (1929). Abus ou relativité des droits - A propos de l"™ouvrage de M. Josserand. París: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
  18. Schill, S. W. (2012). Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Te Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 11 (2), 281-323.
  19. Parraguez Ruiz, L. (2015) Régimen jurídico de los bienes. Quito: Ediciones Iuris dictio.
  20. Topcan, U. (2014). Abuse of the Right to Access ICSID Arbitration. ICSID Review, 29 (3), 627-647.
  21. Vodanovic Haklicka, A. (2001). Manual de derecho civil - Parte Preliminar y General. 2nd ed. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica ConoSur.
  22. Zimmermann, A., et al., (eds), (2006) Te Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Legislación:
  24. German Parlament (1896). German Civil Code BGB. Federal Law Gazette I, Alemania, 18 de agosto de 1896.
  25. Parlamento Italiano (1942). Código Civil Italia. Decreto Real N°262, Italia, 16 de marzo de 1942.
  26. Jurisprudencia:
  27. CIADI (2000). Attorney General v. Baker. Laudo del 7 de marzo de 2000.
  28. "” (2006). Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, Caso CIADI No. ARB/03/26, Laudo del 2 agosto de 2006.
  29. "” (2009). Cementownia "Nowa Huta" S.A. v. República de Turquía, Laudo CIADI No. ARB. (AF)/06/2 del 17 septiembre de 2009.
  30. "” (2009). Europe Cement Investment & Trade v. República de Turquía, Caso CIADI No. ARB (AF)/07/2, Laudo del 13 agosto de 2009.
  31. "” (2009). Phoenix Action Ltd. v. República Checa, Caso CIADI No. ARB/06/5, Laudo del 15 abril de 2009.
  32. "” (2011). Ampal-American Israel Corporation y otros v. Egipto, Caso CIADI No. ARB/12/11.
  33. "” (2012). Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, CA and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, CA v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Caso CIADI No. ARB/12/21, Notifcación de arbitraje del 10 agosto de 2012.
  34. "” (2012). Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. República de El Salvador, Caso CIADI No ARB/09/12, Decisión de Jurisdicción del 1 junio 2012.
  35. "” (2014). Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al. v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Caso CIADI No. ARB/07/27, Laudo del 9 octubre de 2014.
  36. "” (2015). OI European Group BV v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Caso CIADI No. ARB/11/25, Laudo del 10 de marzo de 2015.
  37. Corte Permanente de Justicia Internacional (1932). Francia v. Suiza. (Ser. A/B) No. 46. England and Wales Court of Appeal (2017). Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v. Sinclair. EWCA Civ 3. Sentencia del 7 de febrero de 2017.
  38. High Court of Australia (1994). Rogers v. Te Queen, HCA 42. Sentencia del 28 de septiembre de 1994.
  39. ICSID (2013). Te Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/06/3. Sentencia del 6 de mayo de 2013.
  40. PCA (2012). Yosef Maiman, Merhav (Mnf) Ltd, Merhav Ampal Group Ltd, and Merhav Ampal Energy Holdings Limited Partnership v. Egipto, Caso PCA No. 2012-26, Laudo de 14 de julio de 2012.
  41. "” (2015). Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. Te Commonwealth of Australia, Caso PCA No. 2012-12, Decisión de Jurisdicción y Admisibilidad, 17 de diciembre de 2015.
  42. United Kingdom House of Lords (1982). Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands A.C. 529, 536; 3 W.L.R. 906. Sentencia del 19 de noviembre de 1982.