This article analyses the interpretation by arbitral tribunals of investment treaties’ provisions on the territoriality of the investment and its consistency with the general rule of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The first section focuses on the decisions rendered in Bayview and Canadian Cattlemen, where the tribunals inferred the existence of a territorial requirement not expressed in NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven. The second section deals with the decisions rendered in Fedax, Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio, where the tribunals decided that, in cases concerning financial transactions, it was not necessary for the investment to be actually made in the territory of the respondent State even if the investment treaty expressly required the investment to made in the territory of the State. The article concludes that the tribunals misapplied the general rule of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty in these cases.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 217 | 217 | 24 |
Full Text Views | 31 | 31 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 141 | 141 | 22 |
This article analyses the interpretation by arbitral tribunals of investment treaties’ provisions on the territoriality of the investment and its consistency with the general rule of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The first section focuses on the decisions rendered in Bayview and Canadian Cattlemen, where the tribunals inferred the existence of a territorial requirement not expressed in NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven. The second section deals with the decisions rendered in Fedax, Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio, where the tribunals decided that, in cases concerning financial transactions, it was not necessary for the investment to be actually made in the territory of the respondent State even if the investment treaty expressly required the investment to made in the territory of the State. The article concludes that the tribunals misapplied the general rule of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty in these cases.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 217 | 217 | 24 |
Full Text Views | 31 | 31 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 141 | 141 | 22 |