Drawing the Line: Addressing Allegations of Unclean Hands in Investment Arbitration

Mariano De Alba Uribe

Resumo


The idea underlying the clean hands doctrine is that the lawfulness of the investor’s conduct is a pre-condition for the bestowal of jurisdiction upon the arbitral tribunal. However, this paper argues that the application of such doctrine – in the investment arbitration context – should not mean that States have an unlimited right to pursue the dismissal of a claim following an investor’s failure to comply with the host State’s law. Thus, there are two factors that an investment arbitration tribunal should take into account when confronted with allegations of unlawful acts committed by an investor in the establishment or development of its investment. First, the tribunal should assess the type and the degree of the violation of the law committed by the investor; and second, the tribunal should evaluate the relationship between the investor’s wrongdoing and the State’s conduct in connection with the commission and subsequent treatment of such infraction. In short, this paper provides an analytical framework for tribunals to follow in cases where the clean hands doctrine is invoked.

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências


Abdulhay Sayed, Corruption in International Trade and Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2004.

Aloysius Llamzon, Corruption in International Investment Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2014; p. 238-281 and p. 493-513.

Aloysius Llamzon, The State of the “Unclean Hands” Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha, ICSID Review (Spring 2015) 31 (1), p. 1-15.

Alison Ross, Should “clean hands” be a factor in investment arbitration?, Global Arbitration Review, October 30, 2009, Available at: http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/ article/19249/

Ambiente Ufficio spA and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Ad¬missibility (8 February 2013).

Andrea J. Menaker, The Determinative Impact of Fraud and Corruption on Investment Arbitrations, ICSID Review (2010) 25 (1), p. 67-75.

Andreas Kulick, Global Public Interest in International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Andrew D. Mitchell, M. Sornarajah and Tania Voon, Good Faith and International Economic Law, Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2015, p. 29-30.

Bernardo Cremades, Corruption and Investment Arbitration, in Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Robert Briner, Gerald Aksen et al eds., 2005, p. 203.

Bernardo M. Cremades, Investment Protection and Compliance with Local Legislation, ICSID Review (2009) 24 (2); p 557-564.

Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by Interna¬tional Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 155.

Brody Greenwald, The Viability of Corruption Defenses in Investment Arbitration When the State Does Not Prosecute, EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of Internatio¬nal Law, April 15, 2015, Available at: http://www.ejiltalk. org/the-viability-of-corruption-defenses-in-investment-arbitration-when-the-state-does-not-prosecute/

Carolyn B. Lamm, Brody K. Greenwald, and Kristen M. Young, From World Duty Free to Metal-Tech: A Review of International Investment Treaty Arbitration Cases Involving Allegations of Corruption, ICSID Review (Spring 2014) 29 (2), p 328-349.

Carolyn B. Lamm, Hansel T. Pham, and Rahim Moloo, Fraud and Corruption in International Arbitration, in M.A. Fernandez-Ballesteros and David Arias, Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades, Wolters Kluwer, 2010, p. 711-715.

Case Concerning the Diversion of Water from the River Meuse (Netherlands v. Belgium), Separate Opinion of Judge Hudson, Judgment of 28 June 1937, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 70.

CDC Group, Code of Responsible Investing, available at: www. cdcgroup.com/PageFiles/149/cdcinvestmentcode.pdf.

Christian Tams, Waiver, acquiescence, and extinctive prescription, in James Crawford, Alain Pellet, and Simon Olle¬son, eds., The Law of International Responsibility, Ox¬ford University Press, 2010.

Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea, (1787) 29 Eng. Rep. 1184 (Ch.) 1186; 1 Cox Eq. Cas. 318, 319–20.

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

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award (16 August 2007).

Gustav F.W. Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Gha¬na, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award (18 June 2010).

H.W.A. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, British Yearbook of International Law, Volume 60, 1989, p. 29.

Hugh Thirlway, The Sources of International Law, Oxford University Press, 2014.

Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 503.

Ian Sinclair, Estoppel and Acquiescence, Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Inceysa Vallisoletana, S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award (2 August 2006).

Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services Gmbh and others v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Ju¬risdiction (8 March 2010).

Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. The Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (6 July 2007),336

James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 420-421

Joe Tirado, Matthew Page, and Daniel Meagher, Corruption Investigations by Governmental Authorities and Investment Arbitration: An Uneasy Relationship, ICSID Review (Spring 2014) 29 (2), p. 493-513.

John Cartwright, Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law, Report to the XVII Internatio¬nal Congress of Comparative Law, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 10.3, 2006.

Kevin Lim, Upholding Corrupt Investors’ Claims Against Complicit or Compliant Host States — Where Angels Should Not Fear to Tread, Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2011-2012, Oxford University Press, p. 601-679.

Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Re¬public of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award (30 March 2015).

Martin Hunter and Gui Conde E Silva, Transnational Public Policy and its Application in Investment Arbitrations, The Journal of World Investment, Volume 4, No. 3, 2003, p. 367-378.

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

Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 April 2006).

Mohamed Abdel Raouf, How Should International Arbitrators Tackle Corruption Issues?, ICSID Review (2009) 24 (1), p. 116-136.

Mytilineos Holdings SA v Serbia and Montenegro and Serbia, UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Jurisdiction (8 Septem¬ber 2006).

Niko Resources Ltd. v. Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11, Decision on Jurisdiction (19 August 2013), para Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Explora¬tion Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections (27 July 2006).

Pierre Laclive, Transnational (Or Truly International) Pu¬blic Policy, VIII International Congress on Arbitration, ICCA, Congress Series, 1986, Kluwer, The Hague.

Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award (27 August 2008).

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

Prabhash Ranjan, Using the Public Law Concept of Proportionality to Balance Investment Protection with Regulation in International Investment Law: A Critical Appraisal, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 3, No. 3, 2014.

Quiborax SA and Non-Metallic Minerals SA v Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 September 2012).

Rahim Moloo, A Comment on the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law, TDM 1 (2011); Available at: www. transnational-dispute-management.com.

Richard Kleindler, Corruption in International Investment Arbitration: Jurisdiction and the Unclean Hands Doctrine, in Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Fran¬ke, Kaj Hobér et al eds., Juris, 2010, p. 309-327.

Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri AS v. Republic of Kazakhastan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award (29 July 2008).

SAUR International SA v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Lia¬bility (6 June 2012).

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award (May 20 1992).

T. Leigh Anenson, Limiting Legal Remedies: An Analysis of Unclean Hands, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 99, 2010, p. 63-64.

Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003).

Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Merits, 1962, ICJ Reports 101, para 143-144.

Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004).

Vid Prislan and Ruben Zandvliet, Labor Provisions in International Investment Agreements: Prospects for Sustainable Development, Yearbook of International Investment Law and Policy 2012-2013, Oxford University Press, 2013.337

Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award (8 December 2000).

World Duty Free Company Limited v. The Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award (4 October 2006)

Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation (See Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus), Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) and Yukos Universal Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA226-28, Final Awards (18 July 2014).

Zachary Douglas, The Plea of Illegality in Investment Treaty Arbitration, ICSID Review (Winter 2014) 29 (1), p. 155- 186.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v12i1.3476

ISSN 2236-997X (impresso) - ISSN 2237-1036 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia