INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIES AUTHENTICATED IN TWO OR MORE LANGUAGES

Main Article Content

Filip BALCERZAK

Abstract

The presented article identifies and offers solutions to problems related to interpretation of international investment treaties, which have been authenticated in two or more languages. It focuses on situations when the provisions of investment treaties cause interpretational doubts because their wording is not identical in the official languages of the particular treaty. The scope of the analysis is narrowed down to the provisions concerning the jurisdiction of tribunals, which is justified due to practical implications of jurisdictional considerations in the course of arbitral proceedings. The first part of the article explains relevant applicable general principles of treaty interpretation as expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The second part is a case study, which analyses the problems faced by tribunals in the Kilic Insaat v. Turkmenistan, Berschader v. Russia and Daimler v. Argentina cases. The conclusions presented in the article may serve as a tool in the practice of investor – state arbitration, when implementation of specific provisions of international investment treaties occurs in the course of arbitral proceedings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
BALCERZAK, F. (2014). INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIES AUTHENTICATED IN TWO OR MORE LANGUAGES. Comparative Legilinguistics, 18, 75-87. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2014.18.5
Section
Articles

References

  1. Agreement between the governments of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on encouragement and protection of reciprocal investments, concluded in Moscow on 9 February 1989.
  2. Agreement between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Cyprus for the promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, concluded in Warsaw on 4 June 1992.
  3. Agreement between the Republic of Turkey and Turkmenistan concerning the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments.
  4. Born, Gary B. 2009. International commercial arbitration, vol. I. London.
  5. CME Czech Republic B.V. v. the Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, award dated on 14 March 2003.
  6. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965.
  7. Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, award dated on 22 August 2012.
  8. Dugan, Christopher R., Wallace Don Jr., Rubins Noah, and Sabahi Borzu. 2008. Investorstate arbitration. Oxford.
  9. Gardiner, Richard. 2008. Treaty Interpretation. Oxford.
  10. Green, Czech Republic Pays $355 Million to Media Concern, New York Times (16 May 2003).
  11. Kilic Ĭnsaat Ĭthalat et al. v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, Decision on Article VII.2. of the Turkey – Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, 7 May 2012.
  12. Occidental Petroleum Corporation et al. v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/06/11, Award dated on 5 October 2012.
  13. Shaw, Malcolm N. 2006. Prawo międzynarodowe. Warsaw.
  14. The ICSID Caseload – Statistics (Issue 2012-2) (https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDDocRH&actionVal=ShowDocument&CaseLoadStatistics=True&language=English32).
  15. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) IIA Issues Note No. 1, April 2012, p. 1. (http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaeia2012d10_en.pdf).
  16. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2013, Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development, (New York and Geneva 2013).
  17. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done in Vienna on 23 May 1969.
  18. Vladimir Berschader, Moise Berschader v. the Russian Federation, SCC Case No 080/2004, Award dated on 21 April 2006.
  19. Weiniger, Matthew. 2006. Jurisdiction Challenges in BIT Arbitrations – Do You Read a BIT by Reading a BIT or by Reading Into a BIT?, In: Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration, Mistelis, Loukas A., and Lew Julian D.M., Alphen aan den Rijn.
  20. Yearbook of the International Law Commission (New York 1967), vol. II.