Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Quantum of damages is one of the most important aspects of proceedings in
investment arbitration. Assessment of damages in investment treaty claims
occasionally requires adjustment and reduction of damages under certain
circumstances and situations. This could be explained by the impact of other
rules of international law on the assessment of responsibility and damages in
investment claims. The investment arbitration’s jurisprudence indicates the
relevance of investor's behaviorand practice after and before the breach of
investment treaty standards by the host State to the determination of damages.
Investment treaty obligations are, in principle, intended to exclusively protect
qualified investors. However, conduct and practice of investor in the course of
the investment activity in the host State has to be taken into account at the final
stage of determination of compensation. In addition, contribution to the injury
and non-compliance with the duty to mitigate the loss are the post-breach
considerations potentially relevant to the reductionof damages arising out of
investment treaty breaches.
Taking into account damage-reducing factors is the potential source of
development of the rules of remedies/compensationin investment treaty
arbitration as well as the overall promotion of legitimacy of investment
arbitration system.

Keywords

 
و چارچوب « پیمان جهانی » : حقوق بشر و شرکتهای فراملی » ،( - عسکری، پوریا، ( 1392
درزمانی، سیدقاسم (ویرایش)، جامعه بینالمللی ،« سازمان ملل متحد « حمایت، احترام و جبران »
و حقوق بینالملل در قرن بیستویک، خانه اندیشمندان علوم انسانی، تهران: شهر دانش.
زمینههای تاریخی حضور شرکتهای خصوصی در حقوق بین » ،( - محبی، محسن، ( 1379
. مجله حقوقی، شماره 25 ،« الملل
سالنامه ،« تعهد شرکتهای فراملی به رعایت قواعد حقوق بشری » ،( - نسیمفر، علی، ( 1386
. ایرانی حقوق بینالملل و تطبیقی، شماره 3
پایاننامه
- سخایی، سیداحسان، ( 1387 )، قرارداد نفتی مشارکت در تولید و قابلیت اعمال آن در
صنعت نفت ایران، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد حقوق تجارت بینالملل، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
 
- Berman, Franklin, (2012), Evolution or Revolution? in Brown, Chester and
Miles, Kate, Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration, Cambridge
University Press.
- Dumberry, Patrick, (2013), The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A
Guide to NAFTA Case Law on Article 1105, Kluwer Law International.
- Focarelli, Carlo, (2013), "Denial of Justice", in Max Planck Encyclopedia
of Public International Law, Article last updated October 2013, available at:
<http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/EPIL.
- Franck, Thomas M, (1995), Fairness in International Law and Institutions,
Clarendon Press.
- Muchlinski, Peter, (2007), Multinational Enterprises and the Law, Oxford
University Press, 2nd edition.
- Sabahi, Borzu (2011), Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State
Arbitration: Principles and Practice, Oxford University Press.
- Sornarajah, M., (2004), TheInternational Law on Foreign Investment, 2nd
edition, Cambridge University Press.
- Sornarajah, M., (2015), Resistance and Change in the International Law on
foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press.
- Tudor, Ioana, (2009), "The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and
Human Rights Norms", inDupuy, Pierre-Marie et al. (eds.), Human Rights in
International Investment Law and Arbitration, Oxford University Press.
- Tudor, Iuana (2008), The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the
International Law of Foreign Investment, Oxford University Press.
- Wälde, Thomas W and Sabahi, Borzu, (2008), “Compensation, Damages,
and Valuation”, in Muchlinski, Peter et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
International Investment Law, Oxford University Press.
- Zerk, Jennifer A., (2006), Multinationals and Corporate Social
Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law, Cambridge
University Press.
- Douglas, Zachary, (2003), “Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty
Arbitration”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 74, No. 1.
- Muchlinski, Peter, (2006), “Caveat Investor'? The Relevance of the
Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard”,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55.
- Muchlinski, Peter, (2001), “Human Rights and Multinationals: Is There a
Problem?”, International Affairs, Vol. 77.
- Potestà, Michele, (2013), “Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty
Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept”,
ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 28(1).
- Ratner, Steven R., (2001), “Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of
Legal Responsibility”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111.
- Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas,
Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, Award of
21 November 2007.
- CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL
proceedings, Award of 14 March 2003.
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID
Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of 17 July 2003 on objections to jurisdiction.
- Dissenting Opinion in Occidental v. Ecuador by Brigitte Stern, 20
September 2012.
- Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1, Ltd. v. Peru, ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/28, Award of 18 August 2008.
- (Eudoro Armando Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No.
ARB/98/5, Award of 26 July 2001, unofficial English translation availablae at:
http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0587.pdf.
- Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, 1. C. J.
Reports 1997.
- Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v Arab Republic of
Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6, Award of 12 April 2002.
- MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A., v. Republic of Chile, ICSID
Case No. ARB/01/7, Award of 25 May 2004.
- Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and
Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11,
Award of 5 October 2012.
- YukosUniversal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation,
UNCITRAL proceedings, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award of 18 July 2014