INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ICC Arbitration Case 28000/AC PETER EXPLOSIVE

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC Arbitration Case 28000/AC PETER EXPLOSIVE V. Claimant THE REPUBLIC OF OCEANIA Respondent MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ABREVIATIONS... iv LIST OF AUTHORITIES... vi STATEMENT OF FACTS... 1 ARGUMENTS ON JURISDICTION ISSUE 1: Claimant is not an investor pursuant to Article 2 of the Euroasian BIT.. 3 I. Since Fairyland s annexation was inconsistent with international law Respondent is prohibited from applying the Euroasia BIT in respect to the occupied territory and treaty succession rules do not apply... 3 A. Euroasia s interference with the territorial integrity of Eastasia renders the annexation illegal and without effect... 4 B. The principle of self-determination cannot justify the secession of Fairyland... 6 II. In any case, Claimant is not a protected investor under the Euroasia BIT... 7 ISSUE 2: Claimant may not invoke Article 8 of the Eastasia BIT pursuant to Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT I. Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT cannot be invoked to modify the terms of Respondent s offer to arbitrate i

3 II. In any case, the requirements for application of Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT are not met A. Article 3 does not apply to personal rights, held by investors B. Article 3 is not of the same category of subject of Article 8 of the Eastasia BIT C. The application of Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT does not relate to treatment that is meted out in the territory of the Respondent D. The treatment accorded by Claimant under Article 9 of the Euroasia BIT is not axiomatically less favorable than that accorded under Article 8 of the Eastasia BIT III. Alternatively, the claim of a benefit under Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT triggers the application of the whole Eastasia BIT ISSUE 3: Claimant is required to comply with the pre-arbitral steps provided in Article 9 of the Euroasia BIT prior to bringing his claims before the Tribunal I. Prior recourse to the competent judicial or administrative courts of the host State is a mandatory requirement II. Compliance with this requirement would not be futile ISSUE 4: Claimant s investment is not protected under the BIT ii

4 I. Claimant s investment violated international public policy II. Claimant bears the burden of proof ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS ISSUE 5: Respondent did not expropriate Claimant's investment I. The Executive Order does not Constitute an Indirect Expropriation II. The Executive Order was a Countermeasure as provided by the ILC Articles on State Responsibility ISSUE 6: Claimant Contributed to the Damage Suffered by his Investment RELIEF SOUGHT iii

5 TABLE OF ABREVIATIONS Abbreviation Full Citation Art. Article Additional Protocol I (the 1977 Geneva Protocol I API Additional to the Geneva Convention (iv) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty ECT Energy Charter Treaty Ed. Editor Eds. FET Editors Fair and Equitable Treatment ICC International Chamber of Commerce ICJ International Court of Justice ICSID International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes ILC International Law Commission MFN Most Favored Nation NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement No. Number OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development p. Page para. Paragraph Number PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice PO 1 Procedural Order Number 1 PO 2 PO 3 Procedural Order Number 2 Procedural Order Number 3 pp. Pages SC United Nations Security Council iv

6 U.S. United States UN United Nations UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNGA United Nations General Assembly v. Versus VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties VCST Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties Vol. Volume v

7 LIST OF AUTHORITIES ARTICLES Abbreviation Full Citation Cole Tony Cole, The Boundaries of Most Favored Nation Treatment in International Investment Law in 33 Mich. J. Int l L. 537 (2012) Cosar Uktu Cosar Claims of Corruption in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Proof, Legal Consequences and Sanctions, In Albert Jan van den Berg (ed), legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 18, Kluwer International Law, pp (2015) Hoffmann Anne K. Hoffmann Indirect Expropriation in August Reinisch (ed) Standards of Investment Protection Oxford University Press (2008) Douglas Zachary Douglas, The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails in Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011), pp Dupuy Pierre Marie Dupuy, Preconditions to Arbitration and Consent of States to ICSID Jurisdiction in Meg N. Kinnear et al. (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID, Kluwer Law International (2015), pp vi

8 Kreindler Richard Kreindler Corruption in International Investment Arbitration: Jurisdiction and the Unclean Hands Doctrine Lauterpacht Hersch Lauterpacht, Revolutionary Propaganda by Governments in Collected Papers, ed. E. Lauterpacht, Vol. III Llamzom & Sinclair Aloysius Llamzon and Anthony C. Sinclair, Investor Wrongdoing in Investment Arbitration: Standards Governing Issues of Corruption, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Other Investor Misconduct in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed), ICCA Congress Series, Volume 18, Kluwer Law International, pp (2015). Moloo Rahim Moloo A Comment on the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law (2010). Available at SSRN: OECD OECD, Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2004/04, OECD Publishing (2004) OECD 2 OECD, Indirect Expropriation: is the right to regulate at risk? Jan Paulsson on the Symposium co-organized by ICSID, OECD and UNCTAD Reznik Philip Reznik, Survival of BITs and investor rights in Crimea Russia s Trick or Treat(y) with investors, Thesis in International Law, Stockholm University (2014) vii

9 Rose Cecily ROSE, Questioning the Role of International Arbitration in the Fight against Corruption, 31 J. Int'l Arb. (2014) Teitelbaum Ruth Teitelbaum, Who s Afraid of Maffezini? Recent Developments in the Interpretation of Most Favored Nation Clauses in Journal of International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Vol. 22 Issue 3 (2005), pp Thurer and Burri Daniel Thurer, Thomas Burri, Self-Determination, Oxford University Press (2015) Ustor E. Ustor, Most-Favoured Clause, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, North Holland, Amsterdan 1985, vol. 8, p. 411 BOOKS Abbreviation Full Citation Brownlie s Principles James Crawford, Brownlie s Principles of Public International Law, 8 th Edition, Oxford University Press (2012) MacLachlan, Weiniger Shore, Campbell MacLachlan QC, Laurence Shore and Matthew Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, Oxford University Press (2007) Newcombe and Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice viii

10 Paradell of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Kluwer Law International (2009) Reinisch August Reinisch (ed) Standards of Investment Protection, Oxford University Press (2008) Ripinsky and Williams Ripinsky, Sergey; Willians, Kevin. Damages in International Investment Law, British Institute of Intl. and Comparative Law (2008) CASES ICSID Abbreviation Full Citation Azurix Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12 (14 July 2006) Ambiente Ufficio Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. and Other (case formerly known as Giordano Alpi and Others) v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9 (8 February 2013) Amco Amco Asia Corporation and Others v. The Republic of Indonesia, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1 (25 September 1983) Daimler Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1 (22 August 2012) Gas Natural Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID ix

11 Case No. ARB/03/10 (17 June 2005) Hochtief Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31 (24 October 2011) Inceysa Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26 (2 August 2006) Impregilo Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 (21 June 2011) Kiliç Kiliç Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Turkmenistan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1 (2 July 2013) Mafezzini Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7 (25 January 2000) Metal-Tech Metal-Tech Ltd. V. The Republic of Uzbekistan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3 (4 October 2003) MTD MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7 (25 May 2004) Pey Casado Victor Pey Casado and Fundación Presidente Allende v. The Republic of Chile, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2 (8 May 2008) Phillip Morris Phillip Morris Brands Sàrl, Phillip Morris Products S.A and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, x

12 Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (2 July 2013) Phoenix Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5 (15 April 2009) Plama Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) Micula Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20. Mondev Mondev International ltd. V. United States of America, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002). Siag and Vecchi Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (11 April 2007) Siemens Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (3 August 2004) Soufraki Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. The United Arab Emirates, Award, Case No. ARB/02/07 (7 July 2004) Suez Suez, Sociedade General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (3 August 2006) xi

13 Tecmed Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) Teinver Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 (21 December 2012) Telefónica Telefónica S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/20 (25 May 2006) Tza Yap Shum Sr. Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6 (19 June 2009) Urbaser Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Bizkaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26 (19 December 2012) Wintershall Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14 (8 December 2008) SCC Abbreviation Full Citation Berschader Vladimir Berschader and Moise Berschader v. The Russian xii

14 Federation, Award, SCC Arbitration V 080/2004 (21 April 2006) RosInvest RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, Award on Jurisdiction, SCC Arbitration V 079/2005 (October 2007) UNCITRAL Abbreviation Full Citation Austrian Airlines Austrian Airlines v. The Slovak Republic, Final Award, UNCITRAL Ad Hoc Arbitration (9 October 2009) Ethyl Corp. Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada, Award on Jurisdiction, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Case (24 June 1998) ICS ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited (United Kingdom) v. The Argentine Republic, Award on Jurisdiction, PCA Case No (10 February 2012) Oostergetel Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, UNCITRAL Ad Hoc Arbitration (30 April, 2010) Sanum Sanum Investments Limited v. The Government of the Laos People s Democratic Republic, Award on Jurisdiction, PCA Case No (13 December 2013) S.D. Myers S.D. Myers Inc. v. Government of Canada, Partial Award, UNCITRAL (13 November 2000) xiii

15 Société Générale Société Générale in respect of DR Energy Holdings Limited and Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidade del Esta, S.A. v. The Dominican Republic, Award on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, LCIA Case No. UN 7927 (19 September 2008) MISCELLANEOUS Abbreviation Full Citation Ambatielos The Ambatielos Claim (Greece, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Award of 6 March 1956, Report of International Arbitral Awards Vol. XII pp Anglo-Iranian Case Oil Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objection, Judgment of 22 July 1952, ICJ Reports 1952, p. 93 AO Kosovo Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403 AO Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136 AO South Africa Presence in Namibia Legal Consequences for States of the Continue Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) xiv

16 notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16 Armed Activities Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment of 3 February 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 6 Barcelona Traction Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3 Nicaragua v. United states Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14 Oil Platforms Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections Judgment of 12 December 1996, Separate Opinion by Judge Higgins, I.C.J. Reports 1996 Secession of Quebec Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (Can) MISCELLANEOUS Abbreviation Full Citation Aaland Island Report Aaland Island, Report by the Commission of Rapporteurs, xv

17 League of Nations Council Document B7 21/68/106, 318 (1921) DO Thomas Hochtief Separate and Dissenting Opinion of J. Christopher Thomas, Q.C. in Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31 (7 October 2011) DO SCOTUS BG Group DO Stern Impregilo Dissenting Opinion CJ Roberts in BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, SCOTUS 572 US No (2014) Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Brigitte Stern in Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 ILC Arts. on State Responsibility Draft Articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, 2001, available at ries/9_6_2001.pdf ILC Draft Arts. on MFN Draft Articles on most-favoured-nation clauses with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two (1978) SC Res. 216 Resolution 216 (1965) of 12 November 1965 SC Res. 662 Resolution 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990 UK Model BIT UK Model BIT 2008 in UNGA Res. 31/6/A Resolution 31/6/A Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa: the so-called independent Transkei and other Bantustans, 26 October 1976 xvi

18 UNGA Res. 42/22 A/RES/42/22 Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, 18 November 1987 UNGA Res. 68/262 A/RES/68/262 Territorial integrity of Ukraine, 1 April 2014 UNGA Res A/RES/25/2625 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations 24 October 1970 UNGA Res. ES-10/14 A/RES/ES-10/14 Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 12 December 2003 VCLT Commentary Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Eighteenth Session, 4 May 19 July 1966, Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-first Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/6309/Rev. 1), Yearbook of the International Law Commission Vol. II (1966), available at xvii

19 STATEMENT OF FACTS Involved Parties 1. The Claimant, Peter Explosive, national of the Republic of Eastasia ( Eastasia ), president and owner of Rocket Bombs Ltd ( Rocket Bombs ). 2. The Respondent, the Republic of Oceania ( Oceania ). Transaction Summary 3. In 1992, Oceania and the Republic of Euroasia ( Euroasia ) concluded the Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments ( Euroasia BIT ). At that same year, Oceania and Eastasia also concluded the Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments ( Eastasia BIT ). 4. In February 1998, Claimant purchased 100% of the shares of a broken arms production company called Rocket Bombs, which is allocated in Valhalla, Oceania. Rocket bombs lost its environmental license in November 1997, and thereby had to suspend production. 5. Claimant attempted to procure a subsidy from the Ministry of Environment of Oceania in order to obtain the necessary financial resources to modernize its production line in compliance with the requirements contained in the Environment Act of 1996, but he was unsuccessful. Although lacking the necessary financial resources to adjust Rocket Bombs production, Claimant still arranged to have a private meeting with the President of the National Environment Authority of Oceania ( NEA ), responsible for the environmental licenses, in July In that same month, Claimant obtained the environmental license which allowed for the commencement of arms production by Rocket Bombs, in spite of the fact that the procedure to obtain a license is usually very long and time consuming, and in spite of Claimant s non-compliance with the legal requirements. 6. On 3 August 1998, as it was expected, the Ministry of Environment denied Claimant s request for subsidy. Thus, Claimant sought the Minister of National Defense in Euroasia, his long time friend, to conclude a contract for arms production, in order to obtain the financial resources Rocket Bombs needed to resume production. The parties concluded a contract for a period of fifteen years with a possibility for renewal. 1

20 7. On 1 November 2013, a referendum was held in Fairyland, the place of Claimant s permanent residence. As a result, the majority of the population of this region voted in favor of secession from Eastasia and reunification with Euroasia, as Fairyland was once part of the territory of Euroasia. The government of Eastasia promptly declared that the referendum was unlawful and had no effect on the shape of Eastasian territory, 8. Subsequently, the government of Euroasia held public debates on whether to intervene militarily with the Fairyland affair and eventually decided in favor of military action. Fairyland was occupied by the armed forces of Euroasia on 01 March 2014 and on 23 march 2014 Euroasia officially declared Fairyland as part of its territory. Such act was rejected as illegal by a large portion of the international community and caused Eastasia to immediately break off all its diplomatic relations with Euroasia. 9. Oceania was within the group of countries that did not recognize the annexation. Hence, on 1 May 2014, the President of Oceania issued an Executive Order on Blocking Property of Persons Contributing to the Situation in the Republic of Eastasia ( Executive Order ), which introduced a system of sanctions for the breach of the public international law. This system was against all those who contracted or were economically engaged with Euroasia. 10. In February 2014, after the referendum and during the deliberation of the Euroasian Parliament on the Government s proposal to intervene with the internal affairs of Eastasia, Claimant decided to conclude new contracts with the Ministry of the National Defence of Euroasia. Therefore, the system of sanctions also applied to Rocket Bombs, which meant Claimant was unable to do any business transaction in Oceania. 11. Subsequently to that, the President of the NEA, the same authority with whom Claimant had a private meeting in 1998, was convicted for accepting bribes, on 1 February On 5 May 2015, Peter Explosive was informed that he was under investigation with regard to the environmental license obtained on 23 July 1998 for Rocket Bombs, and criminal proceedings were initiated on 23 June 2015 under allegations of corruption. 12. On 11 September 2015, Claimant submitted its Request for Arbitration requesting compensation for the alleged expropriation of its investment arising out of the enactment of the Executive Order. 2

21 ARGUMENTS ON JURISDICTION ISSUE 1: Claimant is not an investor pursuant to Article 2 of the Euroasian BIT 13. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione personae to decide on the merits of the claim since (i) Respondent is entitled not to apply the Euroasia BIT as a result of its duty of nonrecognition of a violation of a peremptory norm of international law and since such violation leads to the non-application of the moving treaty boundaries rule regarding treaty succession, and because, in any case, (ii) Claimant has not complied with the requirements of Art. 2 of the Euroasia BIT. I. Since Fairyland s annexation was inconsistent with international law Respondent is prohibited from applying the Euroasia BIT in respect to the occupied territory and treaty succession rules do not apply 14. The Claimant contends that the Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione personae over his claims because he possesses Euroasian nationality. It is Respondent s submission that such argument cannot be upheld. 15. The annexation of Fairyland was inconsistent with international law and is therefore unable to result in a legally valid outcome 1. Therefore, Fairyland remains a part of Eastasia and those of its nationals that reside in the annexed territory do not fall under the scope of protection of the Euroasia BIT. The illegality of the annexation is a result of Euroasia s violation of the principle of non-intervention and of the prohibition on the use of force contained in the UN Charter (A), as well as of the fact that Fairyland s secession cannot be justified by the principle of selfdetermination (B). 16. Under international law, Respondent is bound by the obligation not to recognize situations created by a breach of international law 2. Respondent is also under the obligation to refrain from 1 Reznik p Art. 41 ILC Arts. on State Responsibility, AO South Africa Presence in Namibia 119, UNGA Res. 31/6/A, UNGA Res. 68/262, SC Res. 216, SC Res

22 applying bilateral treaties concluded with the aggressor State 3. Hence, Respondent must abstain from applying the Euroasia BIT in the instant case as a result of its duty of non-recognition of acts of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force The illegality of the annexation also entitled Respondent to take countermeasures against Euroasia. As will be further demonstrated in Issue 5, Respondent was authorized to enforce economic sanctions against Euroasian nationals 5 as Euroasia s act of aggression constituted a violation of an obligation owed to the international community as a whole Furthermore, the moving treaty boundaries rule regarding treaty succession enshrined in Art. 15 of the VCST, to which both Respondent and Euroasia are parties 7, does not apply, as the VCST is only applicable to the effects of a succession of States occurring in conformity with international law 8. Thus, treaties concluded by Euroasia are not enforceable in respect of the territory of Fairyland as the treaties of Eastasia have not ceased to be applicable due to the illegal nature of such territory s annexation. A. Euroasia s interference with the territorial integrity of Eastasia renders the annexation illegal and without effect 19. The issue is whether the entrance of Euroasian armed forces into the territory of Fairyland on 1 March amount to a violation of the principles regarding non-intervention and the use of force under international law. 20. Respondent contends that the conduct of the Euroasian Parliament and armed forces interfered with the internal affairs of Eastasia in such a way as to render annexation unlawful under international law. In the words of Lauterpacht: [t]here is, in international law, no right (and no corresponding duty) more absolute, more rigid or more formal than freedom from external interference. 10 Thus, the Tribunal must find that the transfer of Fairyland s territory by 3 AO South Africa Presence in Namibia UNGA Res Art. 54 ILC Arts. on State Responsibility 6 Art. 48.1(a) ILC Arts. on State Responsibility, Barcelona Traction p. 32, 33, 34 7 PO2 8 8 Art. 6 VCST 9 PO Lauterpacht 290 4

23 aggression was without effect as (i) intervention had no justification and (ii) the use of force renders it absolutely illegal. 21. First, the fact that the authorities of Fairyland wrote an official letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Euroasia 11 does not justify intervention. The ICJ has held in Nicaragua that no state practice exists in support of a customary right of intervention in support of an internal opposition in another State 12. According to such ruling, intervention with the internal affairs of a given State is only allowed at the request of such State s government 13. Hence, the support granted by Euroasia to the secession of Fairyland has no legal grounds. 22. Moreover, the Court has also held that secession is unlawful to the extent it has been encouraged by the use of force 14. Although the ICJ has recognized that there is no general prohibition on unilateral declarations of independence 15, they will be illegal insofar as they are connected with breaches of peremptory norms of international law. This general principle as to non-intervention was emphatically stated by the UN General Assembly in the Friendly Relations Declaration, which reflects customary international law Thus, it is argued that since Fairyland s secession was conducted with the help of armed intervention by Euroasian military troops, it amounted to a violation of international law and is thereby without effect. 24. Second, Euroasian conduct violated the customary prohibition on the use of force incorporated in Art. 2.4 of the UN Charter, of which the principle of non-recognition of territorial acquisition obtained by use or threat of force is a corollary 17. According to such article, States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. Therefore, Euroasia does not have a legitimate title over the territory of Fairyland by force of a prohibition based on a peremptory norm of international law. 25. Additionally, given that the territory of Fairyland was transferred from Eastasia to Euroasia by means of an aggression, annexation constitutes an occupation, which triggers the application of 11 Uncontested Facts p Nicaragua v. United States Nicaragua v. United States AO Kosovo AO Kosovo AO Kosovo AO Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory 87, Brownlie s Principles p. 757, UNGA Res. 42/22, UNGA Res. ES- 10/14 5

24 the law of international armed conflict 18. Hence, it is not relevant that occupation of such territory has been met with no armed resistance 19. It is sufficient that resistance to the occupation could have turned into an armed conflict In conclusion, the Tribunal must hold that the illegal nature of the annexation not only leads to the non-application of rules of treaty succession, but also that it entitles Respondent not to recognize the application of the Euroasia BIT to the present case and, thereby, that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim. B. The principle of self-determination cannot justify the secession of Fairyland 27. The question at issue is whether Eastasia still retains its right of sovereignty with regard to Fairyland. It is argued that, irrespective of the flagrant illegality of Fairyland s annexation, such territory s secession by referendum would in any case not produce effects as there is no recognized right, under the Constitution of Eastasia or at international law, of unilateral secession. 28. The legality of unilateral secession must begin by an inquiry of the applicable rules of domestic law There is no express right to secession under the Eastasian legal system and, according to the Eastasian Constitution, each province may organize a regional referendum only to the extent it pertains to matters within the exclusive competence of that province. 22 The referendum upon which Fairyland relies to assert the legitimacy of its secession relates not only to issues affecting such province alone, but is of importance to the State s other provinces, to the federal government, and indeed to all Eastasians both within and outside Fairyland. Therefore, it has no direct legal effect and cannot, by itself, bring about unilateral secession. 30. The application of international law leads to the same result, as the population of Fairyland may exercise internal self-determination. 18 Reznik p Uncontested Facts p Art. 1.4 API 21 Secession of Quebec PO2 2 6

25 31. Outside the context of decolonization, the principle of self-determination applies only in its internal aspect and relates to the safeguard of groups democratic participation within the sovereign State 23 and to effective guarantees with regard to language and autonomy According to the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court in Secession of Quebec, in which the principle was definitively formulated 25, a right to secession or external self-determination only arises when a people is either under the rule of a colonialist power, or is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation 26. In other circumstances, the right to the pursuit of a people s political, economic, social and cultural development must be achieved within the framework of the existing State The same reasoning is recognized by the Friendly Relations Declaration, which determines that the right of peoples to self-determination does not authorize the dismemberment of a State s territorial integrity insofar as the government represents the whole people belonging to its territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour. Further, the ICJ s opinion in Aaland Question also lends support to the proposition that the territorial and political unity of the State prevails over the right of separation No recognized reason for Fairyland s secession exists apart from the wish of the majority of its population to do so or their good pleasure. The population of Fairyland is authorized to freely cultivate their language and Eastasia has always treated them as other Eastasian nationals 29. Secession was not the only means to allow the population of Fairyland to pursue the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination. Therefore, the referendum lacked any legal justification under international law. 35. In brief, the population of Fairyland did not have the right to secede as their right to selfdetermination was preserved. II. In any case, Claimant is not a protected investor under the Euroasia BIT 23 Thurer and Burri Aaland Island Report p Brownlie s Principles p Secession of Quebec p Secession of Quebec Aaland Island Report p PO3 9 7

26 36. The issue is whether Claimant fulfills the requirements set forth under Art. 1.2 of the Euroasia BIT and, thus, holds the nationality of Euroasia according to its laws. It follows that the applicable rules in light of which Claimant s nationality needs to be assessed are the Euroasia BIT and Euroasian law 30. Furthermore, the acquisition of nationality must not be inconsistent with international law 31. As it will be demonstrated, Claimant obtained Euroasian nationality by material error; thus, his nationality does not produce international effects. 37. Art. 1.2 of the BIT provides thus: The term investor shall mean any natural or legal person of Contracting Party who invests in the territory of the other Contracting Party, and for the purpose of this definition (a) the term natural person shall mean any natural person having the nationality of either Contracting Party in accordance with its laws (our emphasis). 38. Albeit within the reserved domain of the jurisdiction of States, when the nationality of a person is challenged, international investment tribunals are competent to adjudicate the matter and are empowered to decide for themselves whether or not they have jurisdiction ratione personae based on the facts and law before them According to the ruling in Soufraki v. UAE, great weight shall be given to the nationality law of the State in question, and to the interpretation and application of that law by its authorities, but evidence of nationality under municipal law, such as certificates of nationality, will have prima facie value only 33. Ultimately, the Tribunal itself is responsible for passing judgment on the issue and no evidence produced will preclude it from reaching a decision at variance with its contents. In other words, the Tribunal is entitled to look behind Claimant s Euroasian identity card and passport, since despite the relevance of such documents they do not alleviate the duty on the Tribunal to apply the Euroasian nationality law, with reference to international law as may be appropriate in the circumstances Oostergetel Micula Soufraki 55, Pey Casado Soufraki Siag & Vecchi 153 8

27 40. Such interpretation led the Soufraki tribunal to hold that the claimant had failed to discharge his necessary burden of proof to demonstrate that he was an Italian national and was, thereby, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal under the Italy-UAE BIT. Pursuant to that tribunal, claimant could not rely on certain certificates and assurances issued by Italian authorities certifying his Italian nationality to establish the ratione personae jurisdiction of the tribunal because there was no evidence that such authorities were aware that, prior to issuance, claimant had acquired Canadian nationality, and thereupon lost his Italian nationality. Accordingly, it was ruled that the documents relied upon by claimant could not conclusively establish that he was a national of Italy at the critical dates under the relevant BIT The same line of reasoning was upheld in Micula v. Romania, in which the tribunal ruled that it would be inappropriate for it to consider one of the claimants to be a Swedish national for the purposes of the BIT if it were shown that he had obtained Swedish nationality by material error. Pursuant to this ruling, in case of error, an investment tribunal should overcome the sovereign decision taken by authorities of a contracting State to the BIT to confer nationality upon an investor since that would be inconsistent with international law It is Respondent s submission that the circumstances surrounding the instant dispute are very similar to the ones in Soufraki and, thus, that the reasoning upheld in the aforementioned decisions is apposite and leads to the non-application of the Euroasia BIT. 43. The Tribunal is bound to apply the Euroasian Citizenship Act, which is the only means of determining Euroasian nationality. Such law does not allow Euroasian nationals to possess dual nationality 37. Therefore, in order for Claimant to have effectively become a national of Euroasia he was first required to comply with the legally prescribed procedure for renunciation of Eastasian citizenship under Eastasian law. 44. Claimant did not follow the formal requirements for renunciation established by the Eastasian Citizenship Law 38, thereupon not properly renouncing his Eastasian nationality prior to submitting an application to become a national of Euroasia under the 1 March 2014 amendment to the Euroasian Citizenship Act. However, Claimant sent an electronic to the President of 35 Soufraki Micula PO PO3 2 9

28 the Republic of Eastasia in which he declared the renunciation of his Eastasian citizenship 39. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Euroasian authorities did not pursue an accurate and thorough inquiry on whether Claimant indeed fulfilled all the requirements for naturalization under the Euroasian Citizenship Act and were not aware that the fashion in which Claimant procured his renunciation of Eastasian nationality was not in conformity with the prescribed legal conditions. 45. Thus, having established that the requirements of the Euroasian Citizenship Act have not been met, the Tribunal must find that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae over the claim since Claimant s Euroasian nationality was obtained in a manner inconsistent with international law. ISSUE 2: Claimant may not invoke Article 8 of the Eastasia BIT pursuant to Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT 46. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to rule over the merits of Claimant s allegations as (i) the MFN clause of the Euroasia BIT cannot alter the ratione voluntatis scope of the Treaty, and since (ii) such clause does not meet the necessary requirements under the specific circumstances of the case in order for Claimant to invoke the dispute resolution clause of the Eastasia BIT. I. Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT cannot be invoked to modify the terms of Respondent s offer to arbitrate 47. The matter under contention is whether Claimant may invoke the MFN clause contained in Art. 3 of the Euroasia BIT to access and rely upon the dispute resolution provision of the Eastasia BIT. Claimant submits that Art. 3 of the Euroasia BIT, coupled with Art. 8 of the Eastasia BIT, grants him direct access to international arbitration under the auspices of the ICC. It is argued that such claim does not withstand scrutiny as the MFN clause is restricted by the objective conditions for application of the Euroasia BIT, which include the condition that Claimant submit any 39 PO3 2 10

29 investment dispute arising out of the Treaty to the competent judicial or administrative courts of Oceania for 24 months prior to resorting to arbitration. 48. Art. 3.1 of the BIT provides thus: Each Contracting Party shall, within its own territory, accord to investments made by investors of the other Contracting Party, to the income and activities related to such investments and to such other investments matters regulated by this Agreement, a treatment that is no less favourable than that accorded to its own investors or investors from third-party countries. 49. Under a MFN clause a State the granting State undertakes an obligation towards another State the beneficiary State, or to persons or things in a determined relationship with that State, to accord it no less favorable treatment than that extended to a third State, or to persons or things in the same relation with that third State, in an agreed sphere of relations In order to decide on whether dispute resolution falls within the scope of the undertakings reciprocally made by the Contracting Parties to the Euroasia BIT the Tribunal must determine what the Parties to the Treaty actually consented to. In other words, as held by the arbitration commission in Ambatielos II, [t]he question can only be determined in accordance with the intention of the Contracting Parties as deduced from a reasonable interpretation of the Treaty. 41 Hence, Art. 8 of the Eastasia BIT will only be within the purview of the MFN clause in the Euroasia BIT if that result is aligned with the overall framework for protection and promotion of investments accepted by the latter treaty s Contracting Parties Respondent is cognizant that, pursuant to extensive jurisprudence, there is no basis for the argument that consent clauses must be construed restrictively. Rather, in accordance to Art. 31 of the VCLT, all clauses of the BIT have to be interpreted neither broadly, nor liberally, but in good faith and in accordance to the principle that the text of the BIT must be presumed to be the authentic expression of the parties intention. 43 However, the obligation to interpret treaties in good faith imposed upon the Tribunal by the VCLT demands that it does not exceed the consent 40 Art. 4 ILC Draft Arts. on MFN 41 Ambatielos p Daimler Oil Platforms 35, Amco 14(i), Siemens 81, Ethyl Corp 55, Austrian Airlines 119, Mondev 43, VCLT Commentary p

30 of the Contracting Parties 44. Such standard of consent does not vary according to the context in which it is considered and, thereby, applies with equal force to the interpretation of whether or not MFN clauses may be sufficient to establish consent to arbitration As recognized by the tribunal in Amco v. Indonesia, it is a general principle of law that any convention should be construed in good faith, that is to say by taking into account the consequences of their commitments the parties may be considered as having reasonably and legitimately envisaged (our emphasis) Therefore, the MFN clause cannot impose upon Respondent obligations it never contemplated at the time it concluded the Euroasia BIT 47. The Tribunal is not entitled to incur in a substantial rewrite of the BIT by interpreting into the MFN clause binding obligations beyond those which Respondent has undertaken 48. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, MFN treatment cannot apply to shape the consent of the Contracting Parties. 54. Claimant s reliance on the MFN clause in order to modify the conditions of Respondent s offer to arbitrate imposes upon Respondent obligations it did not envisage at the time it concluded the Treaty: a) Because applying such clause to bypass the requirements that must be fulfilled before the BIT can apply at all goes against a reasonable interpretation of the intention of the Contracting Parties; and b) Since it cannot be sensibly assumed that the Parties consented to a provision which would allow Claimant to pick-and-choose between entirely different elements in the global framework of Respondent s third-party treaties even when such elements would contradict the rationale of the basic treaty. a) The MFN clause does not apply to bypass the condition ratione voluntatis of the BIT 44 Daimler ICS Amco 14(i) 47 ILC Draft Arts. MFN Commentary p Sanum

31 55. As demonstrated in Issue 3.I, States are entitled to impose whatever conditions they desire to their offer to arbitrate to investors. Consent will only arise upon the acceptance of such conditions by the putative investor, who had no relation whatsoever to the conclusion of the offer and was, in fact, not even known at that time. Acceptance and offer will only create an agreement to arbitrate if they coincide, in other words the investor must accept the offer in a take or leave it basis Thus, the requirement under the Euroasia BIT that investors submit their disputes to local courts prior to pursuing legal redress by means of international arbitration is a condition precedent for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Claimant is, thereby, not yet entitled to invoke the application of Art. 3 of the Euroasia BIT. The principle that a tribunal must first have jurisdiction in order for an investor to benefit from MFN treatment was definitively set by the ICJ in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Case and subsequently upheld by investment tribunals 51. Hence, as ruled by the majority in Daimler v. Argentina, to the extent an investor has not yet satisfied such a condition, its MFN arguments are not yet properly before the Tribunal Each treaty sets forth its own conditions and scope of application ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione voluntatis. The condition provided by Art. 9 of the Euroasia BIT concerns the latter. Just as much as the MFN clause cannot be utilized to enlarge the scope of the basic treaty regarding the investments that can benefit from the rights granted by the BIT 53, or alter the time dimension of application of the Treaty s provisions 54, it cannot widen the purview of the basic treaty s right to international arbitration 55. In other words, the beneficiary of the MFN clause cannot claim rights which are beyond conditions and restrictions set by the Treaty Thereupon, absent any affirmative evidence regarding the application of the MFN clause to dispute settlement or clear indication to that effect 57, the Tribunal must find that Claimant cannot 49 Memorial Urbaser 123, Kiliç 6.2.9, Daimler Anglo-Iranian Oil Case p. 20, Daimler fn. 36, Wintershall Daimler Société Générale Tecmed DO Stern Impregilo Ustor p Daimler 175-6, ICS 280, Wintershall

32 rely on Art. 3 of the Euroasia BIT to invoke Art. 8 of the Eastasia BIT. The opposite interpretation would subvert the expectation of the Contracting Parties to the basic treaty as to the scope of the obligations they had undertaken when concluding the Treaty. In any case, it is Claimant s burden to prove otherwise Moreover, such argument is all the more to the point since, at the time the BIT was concluded, on 1 January , the only reasonable and legitimate view regarding the operation of MFN clauses was that it only applied to substantive provisions 60. At that time, there was no judicial or arbitral authority for the proposition that a MFN clause could apply to dispute resolution. Therefore, it is legitimate to conclude that the Contracting Parties to the Euroasia BIT did not envisage the possibility that its MFN clause could be used to modify Art. 9 s stipulations Hence, considering that treaties meaning and scope must be ascertained as of the time they were negotiated 62, the claim that Art. 3 applies should be dismissed. b) It cannot be reasonably assumed that the Contracting Parties to the Euroasia BIT intended the application of the MFN clause to have such drastic effects at the time they concluded the Treaty 62. As remarked in the rulings granted by the tribunals in Berschader v. Russia and Telenor v. Hungary, any interpretation which allows MFN clauses to override limitations in the basic treaty at the moment one of its contracting parties concludes a different BIT containing a wider dispute resolution clause generates both uncertainty and instability 63. It is argued that no reasonable construction of the common will of the Contracting Parties would conclude that they intended for the application of the Treaty to lead to such an unpredictable state of affairs. If the State Parties truly intended for the MFN clause to extend to dispute resolution they would clarify this in the text of the Treaty In light of the aforementioned arguments, Respondent contends that it is not necessary for the Tribunal to analyze whether the MFN clause s specific requirements are met in the instant case, as a cursory reading of the clause s terms is sufficient for the conclusion that the Euroasia BIT 58 ICS Uncontested Facts 1 60 DO Thomas Hochtief Berschader 202, Kiliç ICS Telenor 94, Berschader Berschader 202, Wintershall

33 does not specifically provide for the application of MFN treatment to alter the qualifying conditions for application of the Treaty. Unlike certain investment treaties, which expressly state that MFN treatment may be invoked to alter the restrictions to consent agreed upon by the contracting parties 65, the Euroasia BIT does no such thing. Hence, in the absence of clear and certain consent, the Tribunal must find that uncertain and ambiguous hints of intention do not justify the MFN clause s application to dislodge limitations set by the Treaty. II. In any case, the requirements for application of Article 3 of the Euroasia BIT are not met 64. As stated in Tza Yap Shum v. Peru, each MFN clause is a world in itself 66. Therefore, irrespective of a ruling by the Tribunal regarding the general possibility of application of the MFN standard to alter the terms of a host State s offer to arbitrate, the MFN clause will only be applicable inasmuch as the advantage Claimant seeks to benefit from complies with certain conditions. Furthermore, while Claimant must prove that all such conditions are met in order to rely upon Art. 3 of the Euroasia BIT, it is sufficient that Respondent demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that only one of the requirements have not been fulfilled for the MFN clause to be rendered inapplicable. 65. Art. 8 of the Eastasia BIT does not fulfill any of the requirements established by the Euroasia BIT and set forth under the applicable rules of international law. Thereby, Claimant is not entitled to rely on the MFN clause to invoke more favorable treatment under the Eastasia BIT since (A) the MFN clause only applies to property rights relating to investments, (B) the MFN clause in the basic treaty does not operate in relation to dispute settlement matters, (C) the clause only concerns treatment accorded by Respondent within its own territory, and (D) the treatment extended to investors of Eastasia cannot be considered more favorable than that accorded to Claimant under Art. 9 of the Euroasia BIT. 65 Art. 3(3) UK Model BIT 66 Tza Yap Shum