1 1LL.M; MCIArb; Mediator and Arbitrator, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Mcmbcr, London Court of International Arbitration; Partner, Okibe Lawhouse (Legal Practitioners, Arbitrators), Port Harcourt, Nigeria; Research Director, Centre for Arbitration Studics, Port Harcourt; Senior Lecturer in Law, Rivers State University of Science & Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The author has previously published as and is also known as Andrew I. Okekeifere. He can be contacted at: «email@example.com».
This antipathy stems in the main from a suspicion ofpartiality against them and their nations in international arbitrations by some arbitrators. It is generally accepted that a bias existed at least in the past. Mr Jan Paulson has said of this: "it may be truc that in the beginning of this Century, and until the 1950s, arbitrations conducted by various international tribunals or commissions evidenced bias against developing countrics": ThirdWorldParticipationiiiInternationalInvestmentArbitration, 2 ICSH3 Rev. 1, 1987, at 19. Some othcr cqually important conuncntators rnaintain that the bias still exists. See, for instance, M. Sornarajah, Pmoeral1d justireillForeigilInvestmentArbitratioii, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, at p. 103, who in fact cites the above opinion ofMr Paulson at p. 103, footnote 2.
2 One trend is to regard "commercial arbitration" as incltisive of investment arbitration, thereby making any distinction between them redundant and idle. For instance, the accompanying note to the United Nations Commission. on International Trade Law's (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Commcrcial Arbitration urges nations that, in adopting the Law, "commercial" should "be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a conunercial nature ... (such as) exploitation agreement or concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or busincss co-operation ..." to which nations adopting the Law would seem to have generally paid heed. In the current article, comnercial arbitration is, for convenience, generally regarded as any other arbitration in the sector under discussion outside investment arbitration, but the two phrases may also be used interchangeably in some parts of the article. 3 On this, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, CommercialArbitrationAsTheMostEffektiveDisputeResolutionMethod:Still AFactorNow AMyth? 15 J. Int. Arb. 4, December 1998. ^ Whether or not this antipathy has declined remains arguable: Paulson, .supra, footnote 1, notes a decline; M. Somarajah, TheUncitralModelLaw:AThirdWorldViewpoint, 6 Int. Arb. 4, Dcccmbcr 1989, p. 7, at p. 9 notes no decline. lt would indeed seem clcarly to have been on a serious and fast decline since thc bcginning of the last decade. Whether or not it may be reinstated, especially with respect to arbitrations conducted by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), is becoming an important question. See, for instance, Nagla Nassar, luternatioealisation9StateContracts:ICSID,theLastCitadel, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 185, at p. 207. A part of this article also sounds a similar caution. 5 The country gaincd independence from Great Britain in October 1960. erz Cap. 19, Laws of thc Fcdcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition.
For these matters, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, InternationalCommercialArbitrationandtheLl>V'ModelLa",widerWrittenFederalConstitutions:NecessityversusConstitutionalityintheNigerianLegalFramework, 1G J. Int. Arb.2.Junel999. 1 Nigeria is an entity of about 250 nations. They were welded into a political unit in 1914 for administrative convenience. cm See such cases as Assamyonqr.ArmuakuE'Others, (1932) 1 WACA (West African Court of Appeal Reports) 192; Mbagbuv.Ayochukwu, (1973) 3 Ecslr 90; AbelNkado&TwoOthersv.OznlikeObi<1lliJ&Another (1993) 4 NWLR (pt. 287) 305; UzorIdika&ElevenOthersv.NdukaErisi&3Others, (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 178) 563. �° F. Kellor, AmericanArbitration:ItsHistoryF.mctiollsandAchiel'emcl1ts, Harper, New York, 1948; 1 Call1bridge Law Journal 28. For a fuller examination ofarbitration under thc custornary law, sec Okekeifere, 5111'''', footnote 7, and idem,TheRecentOdyssey)fCustmllaryLaivArbitrationaiidConciliationillNigeria'sApexCourts, 4 Abia State University Law Journal, Abia State, Nigeria, 1998.
11 Except foreigiicrs who conscnt or who by extensive involveinent in custornary practices, such as thc taking of traditional chicftaincy titles, have made thcmselves automatic subjects of custornary law. 12 For morc on this, see Andrew 1. Chukwuemeric, SalieruIssueintheLawsandPractice�)farbitratioiiitiNigeria, paper presented at the colloquium "Arbitration and the African States", organized at the Senate House, University of London, 4-5 June 2003, by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and King's College, London. 13 It adapts very quickly to appreciate and solve contemporary problems. "One of the most striking features of West African native law and custom is its flexibility; it appears to have been always subject to motives of expediency, and it shows unquestionable adaptability to altered circumstances without entirely losing its character." Osborne, CJ, in Lewisv. Bankole, (1908), 1 NLR 81, at 100-101.
14 See, for instance, High Court Law 1955 ofEastern Nigeria, sections 14 and 20, now applicable in the castern states; and High Court Law 1955 of Northern Nigeria, sections 28 and 28a, now applicable in the northern states. 15 See, for cxample, NinianteksAssociatesv.MarcoC""strurtiol1Co.Ltd., (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 174) 411, CA. �r� See Ijebu-OdeLCv.Adedejiβaloyun&Co.Ltd., (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 166) 136, SC; Sandav.KakawaLG, (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 174) 379, SC. 17 Following English law on thc point; see BririshMotorTradeAssociationv.Snlvador, (1949) 1 All ER 208. '" See, for example, RoyalExchangeAssuraricev.BentworthFillallce(Nigerian)Ltd., (1976) N(-,Li�. 72. 19 See, for example., Ransorne-Kuriv.Attomey-GelleratoftheFederation, (1985) 2 NwuZ (pt. 6) 211, SC. =° See, for instance, TrertdtexTradingCorp.Ltd.CfMfmtBankof'Nigeria(Trrrtdtex), (1977) All ER 88. 21 See AIJiedC.luepferhic.v.Edokpolor, (1965) Nclr 89. Even under section ofCap. 19 ofthe Laws ofthe Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition, which is patterned after the UNCITRAL Model Law definition of an "agreement,", an oral agreement can still pass as valid. See Chukwuemeric, supra, footnote 12. 22 Nigerian law also follows the English law on this point; see, for instance, ArabAfriranEI1e��yCorp.Ltd.v.OlieprodnktenNcderlandBV, (1983) 2 Lloyds's Rep. 219; HobbsPadgett&Cn.(Reinsurance)Ltd.1'.JCKirklandLtd., (1969) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 547. 23 See, for cxample, MurmanskStateSte<1ltlShipLinev.KanoOilMillersLtd.(MurnrartskStateSteamshipLine), (1974) Nscc (vol. 9) 590. Dental offair hearing completely voids the proceedings and award: J. E/I(�u!(,&Othersv.Akaiqtve&Others(EI1igll'ev. Akaiyu�e), (1992) 2 Nwui (pt. 225) 505. 24 Countries that by reason of colonial association adoptcd the English comrnon law. 25 It is generally so in Nigerian law. Such a decision cannot stand: seej. NlI'al1gll'lIv.Nzeku·uCoAllor,(1957) 2 Fsc 36.
20 See, for exairiple, LeylanäNigeriaLtd.v.DizzengoffWA(Ni,eeria)Ltd., (1990) 2 Nwi�i2� (pt. 134) 610, 623; Gottschalkv.ElderDeppipsterFyCo.Ltd., (1917) 3 NIR 16. 27 See MumranskStateStearnshipLilie,supra, footnote 23. 28 The federating units (regions and later states) each had an Arbitration Law, a carbon copy of the Act. For more on this, see Okekeifere, supra, footnote 7. 21 Cap. 189, Laws of thc Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (revised edition). Formerly lcsil) (enforcement of Awards) Decree No. 49 of 1967.
;° For more on this, including the difficulties involved, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, 77re EnforcementandChallenyeal Forc(�1IArbitralAwardsil1Nigeria, 14 J. lnt. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 223. See also infra, footnote 74 and accompanying text. 3� Cap. 350, scctioii 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition; formerly the Petroleum Decree No. 51 of 1969. The provision was section 10 in thc Decree. 12 See, for instancc, CityEngineeringLtd.v.NigerianAirportsAuthority, (2001) FWLR (pt. 34) 499, SC.
33 On these matters, scc Chukwuc�nerie, snpra, footnote 12. ;� (1991) 30 lLm 577.
35 Othcrs include AMTv.Zaire, (1997) 12 4 Mealy's International Arbitration Reporter Al. On thc controversy, sec, for instance, Sornarajah, snyra, footnotc 1, pp. 126-129 and 130-135. •Vl A. Broches, BilateralInvestmentTreatiesal1dArbitrationaj'bweslmfl11Disputes, in J. Schulz and A. Jan Van Den Berg (eds.), TheArtof Arbitration:Liber AlllieomlllPieterSal1dcrs, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 63. 3� Snprn, footnote 1, pp. 130-131. 1. 3M "British Treaties for the 1'promotion and Protection of Investment", in F.A. Mann, Flirthcr5t/1diesinInternationalLaw,1990.
39 Made by the Organisation for African Unity in June 1981. OAU Doc. CAtt/LEC167/4/Rtv 5, reprinted in (1982) 21 ILM 58. 411 See Andrew I. Chukwucmerie, CommercialArbitrationandThirdPartyInterests — Views fortheFuture, Abia State Univcrsity Law Journal, Uturu, Nigeria, fbrthcoming.
41 See ibid., notes 129-1311. In fact, in Nigeria, for instance, the ability of a third party to enforce a contract to which hc is not a signatory can in somc circumstances now be taken as established; see, for examplc, AliM.Shuwav.ChadBasinDevelopmentAuthority, (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 205) 550, at 562; ChiefPatrirkAI1llsomwa"I'.MercarrtileBank of NigeriaLtd., (1987) 3 Nwmt (pt. 60) 196; UniorrBankof NigeriaLtd.Fy Artnrv.Penny-martLtd., (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 240) 228. 42 Decree No. 16 of 1995. ^3 Ibid., Scction 26(3). 44 The required consent is on the same principle with thc requirement in the other rules for a written agreement manifesting clear and dehnite intent to submit the dispute to arbitration under the particular institution. See, for instance, Article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. '� UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 7(2). 4e See supra, footnote 26.
°� See, for example, Gcorges R. Delaume, ICSIDArbitrationandtlteCourts, A.J.I.L., 1983, p. 784; O. Chukwumerije, InternationalIaii,<1l1dArticle42oftheICSIDConvention, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 79, at p. 93, note 47 and the authorities citcd therein; l3roches, supra, footnote 36; G. Wegen, DisputeSettlementalliIArbitration, in S.J. Rutin and R.W. Nelson, (eds.), InternationalInvestmentDispute:AvoidanceandSettlement, American Society of Int. Law Publication, Washington, D.C:., 1985. '" Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, at p.137, note 27; (Canadian treaties with the Philippines and Trinidad and Tobago. 49 Sornarajah, ibid., note 126; Canada—Argcntina Treaty 1991.
511 (1993) 32 IM 937. Such as where the treaty provision only requires that the dispute "shall, upon agreement by both partics, bc submitted for arbitration by the Centre" or a "sympathctic consideration (should be given) to a requcst to conciliation or arbitration by the Centre" or the host State "to asscnt to any demand on the part of the national to submit for conciliation or arbitration". This classification was made by Brochcs, sitpra, footnote 36; and also cited in Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1 , at pp. 130-131, note 97 (see also his other references at notes 98-101).
'= See, generally, IlItlest/tlt'I111'rnsyectsintheI'etroleumSectorof Nigeria, a paper prescnted by thc then Petroleum Minister, Chief Dan Etete, at the 2nd Nigeria Economic Sunniit, 3-5 May 1995 in Abuja.
'' See, generally, George Kirkland (Managing Director of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.), ReinventingPnrtnershipsfortheNewMillennium, The Guardian (Nigeria), Wednesday, 27 May 1998. Cap. 432, Laws of thc Fedcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition; formerly the Trade Disputes Decree No. 7 of 1976.
55 See, for instance, for each argument, ThcQatarArbitration, (1953) 20 ILR 534, and TheAbuDhabi Arbilral;oll, (1958) 27 Il 117; A. Verdross, Quasi-il1lemaliollalAgreementsandInternationalCommercialTransactions, (1964) YUWA, p. 230; and TexacoOversrasPetroleurnCo./Cali[AsiaticOilCo.v.theGovernmentof theLibyanArabRepublic, 53 lr.n 389 (1979), and (1978) 17 ILM 3. 56 Islamic law, for instance; on this, see Waled El Malik, MineralInvestment<1lldtheShariaLaws, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1993; indem,StateOwnershipqfMiiieralsunderIslamirLaw, Journal of Energy and National Resources Law, 1996; both also cited by Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, at p. 108, note 22.
'� See also cases such as TaylorWondrowofNigeriaLtd.v.S.E.GmbH(TaylorWoodrow), (1993) 4 NLR (pt. 286) 127; Entywev.Akaigwe,supra, footnote 23. 51 See supra, footnote 23. 5'' In Beltzv.Parrkom, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1503 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1995), A lost an award before a panel of three arbitrators, one of which was C. A discovered that C, a lawycr, had becn a partner in a firm that represented not B, the other party, but intcrcsts affiliated with B. lt was found as fact that C had never met 13, never worked on any of B's matters and did not know that B had becn a client ofthat firm which, at any rate, hc had left and from which he was not in a position to ask for a conflicts check. The court of first instance held that he had failed in a duty of disclosure: that he should have discovered those facts and disclosed them, and it vacated the award. The decision was, happily, reversed on appeal. See, generally, James H. Carter, RightsandObl(�aliollSoftheArbitrator, 63 J.C.I. Arb. 3, 1997, p. 170, at p. 172. �' See, generally, Andrew I. Okekeifere, 7heParties'RightsAyainst ADilatoryorUnskilledArhilralor-Nell'PossibleApproaches, 15 Int. Arb. 2, June 1998, p. 129. 61 Ibid., pp. 140-143.
f'2 Cap. 19, section 4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition. 61 Compare, for example, Section 9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 ofGrcat Britain; and Article 1032(1) ofthe German Arbitration Act 1998. 64 On these issues generally, see Andrew I. Okekcifcre, Stay-of-Courtl-roceedingsPending ArbitrationinNigerianLaw, 13 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1996. fi' Great Britain, for instance, by the combined effect of Sections 32, 44 and 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
66 These can only be arbitrated under the Tradc Disputes Act, supra, footnote 54. 6' By virtue of the Copyrights Act, Cap. 68, Laws of the Fedcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition. On whcther or not non-arbitrability is wisc for any country and for other related matters, sec Andrew I. Okekeifere, PublicPolicyandArbitrabilityundertheUNClTRALModel Law, 2 Int. A.L.R., 1999. r·" Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, for instance. Such occurrence is very unlikely anyway. See the discussion suyra, at footnotes 30 and following. 6') More on this latcr in Section V on applicable law. 711 See the discussion irfra, Section v.
71 Including countries that are not even Mcmbers of the New York Convention and, amongst Members, cvcn countries in which the reciprocity reservation which Nigeria made would deny recognition to awards made there. 72 (1965) 1 All Nut 297. 73 A party can, however, appeal against a dccision in an enforcement or challenge of an award; see TaylorWoo�lrow,sitpra, footnote 57. 74 For a fuller discussion of thcsc matters, see Okckeifere, supra, footnote 30.
�s That parties are granted such wide latitude is an eloquent indication of the enormous importance the country attaches to party autonom. Parties are at liberty, subject only to such forbidden things as illegality, to chose what is best for them, they being the bestjudges of their own interests. The draftsmen committee an oversight in sub-section 2(d). The sense is not that "any dispute arising ... shall be treated as an international arbitration" but that an arbitration in settlement of "any dispute arising ... shall be treated as an international arbitration". �r� Any Company operating in Nigeria is required to be registered in Nigeria as a Nigerian company. Now that the Enterprises Promotion Decrees no longer apply, such a registration can amounts to mere paperwork, as foreigners can own 100 percent of the shares. If that is the case, it may hardly be fair, all things considered, to insist that its nationality is Nigerian tot the purpose of determining whcther or not it is entitled to a foreigner's privilcgcs.
�� Bairamian FJ, in Omonyinv.Omotosho, (1961) 1 All NLR 304, 309. �N Karibi-Whytc JSC, in RaphaelAguv.ChristiaiiIkewibe, (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 180) 385, 409.
79 Okekeifere, siipra, footnote 7, in the sction on "Cap. 19, The State Laws and the Old Arbitration Act". "" Two proceedings involving very interesting legal issues. The author represented the Claimant in cach proceeding. The cases have not been reported, but the relevant documents are on file with the author.
81 See, for cxample, ObaferniAwolmuoUl1ipersityv.Dr.Onabarjo, (1991) 5 Nwtn (pt. 193) 549, 561, 566; SimeonWejinv.AshakaCemeruCo.Ltd., (1991) 8 NWLR (pt. 211) 608, 615. 82 See MurrnanskStateSteaiiisliipLine,supra, footnote 23. X3 If States find that international law will be applied irrespective of the correctiiess or otherwise of such application or of thcir genuine feehngs, they may deny such awards recognition and enforcement undcr Articles v(1)(d) and v(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention, since enforcing an imposition may well be against public policy in theirjurisdictions. lt is in Nigeria. X4 27 ILR 117, 165.
8S (1984 11) 6 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 75. 86 (1987 11) 15 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 1989. 17 For a fuller discussion of Iran-U.S.C.T.R. cases on this point, see Nassar, sitpra, footnote 4, pp. 187-192. "" 20 ILM 1 (1981). "''BPExplorationCo.(Libya)Ltd.v.TheGovernmentof theLibyanArabRepublic, 53 Ilr 297, 1979; LexacoOverseasPetroleumCo./CaliforniaAsiaticOilCo.v.ThfGovernmentof theLibyanArahRepiiblic, 53 ILR 389, 1979. ''" Many ofwhich involve legal and economic investment questions equally as important as those in thc 1(:sll) arbitrations, or cvcn more so. See footnotes 85-89, supra.
'" Gerald Segal, TlveWorldAffairs,Companion, 3rd edition, Simon & Schuster Ltd., London, 1991, p. xxiii. 1)2 Otto Schachtcr, TheInvisibleCollegeof InternationalLawyers, 72 N.W.U.L.R. 217, 220, 221, 1977; quoted by Rudolf Dolzcr, NewFOImdatiJ>l1sof theLawrfExpropriationofAlicrtProperty, 75 A.J.LL. 553, 1981, at pp. 554-555, notc 6.
'13 Nassar, supra, footnote 4, pp. 199-202, analyses the only two cascs that could havc expressly pronounccd on thc point: Lt°i'ca>v.Liberia. (1987) 29 ILM 648; and Sl'i'v.Exypt, (1993) 32 11M 937; and finds that tliey are morc in agreement with the propriety ofan irnplied choice. 14 World Bank, ConventiononthuSettlementof II1Pfstmfl1tDisputesBetweenStatesandNationalsof otherStates,DocumentsConcerningtheOriginandFonnationof theConvention, Washington, D.C., The World Bank Group, 1968, p. 569. 95PrintingandNumericalRegisleril1gCa.v.Sampsori, (1875) LR 19 Eq. 462, 465. Even so arbitrators. Gilbertv.Bumstille, 255 NY 348, 174 NE 706 (1931), at pp. 354-355. For "Court" read "IcsiD tribunal". The decisions referred to, ofwhich individuals ought not to run foul, are well-founded judgments, in this case, not just rcasonings and pronOnIlCCIllCnts in prcvious awards arrived at on thc same shaky principlcs and gcncralizations as havc formally bccn donc in this area.
'" (t984)23!LM35). 91 Ibid., at p. 402. » At p. 29 of the original Award as rendered. 11111 (1987) 29 ILM 648. 101 Nassar, supra, footnote 4, p. 202.
1112 World Bank, supra, footnote 94, Vol. 1I, pt. 2, p. 985. 103 (1993) 32 ILM 937. 104 Thc chances arc far slimmer in the light of the current practice of States to copy and update arbitration and investments laws, cspccially amongst the poor countries desirous of attracting more forcign invcstnxcnt.
"'S See Chukwumerije, supra, footnote 47, at pp. 80-82. 1116 World Bank, cupra, footnote 94, p. 985. 1117 Ceylon, for instance; see ibid., pp. 800-804. 1118 Ibid., p. 800. "''' On thc ground that as a quasi-international tribunal an ICSID tribunal should be ablc to apply international law in appropriate cases; see ibid., p. 801. 11(1 Ibid., Vol. l, pp. 192-194. 111 Ibid., p. 571. 1. "2 Ibid., Vol. n, pt. 2, p. 985. 111 It is a contract between States which, subject to considerations for world peace, etc., are free to contract as may be fit for their national interests.
114 They have been shown to be a subsequent change of opinion; sec Chukwumerije, supra, footnotc 47, pp.90-92. 115 QHt'rrt': if there is no ascertainable international law rule on the point, what happens? 116 (1989 m) 23 Iran-U.S.C.T.R 351.
rr� Though the Model Law was created in 1985, such an eminent commercial centre as German only adopted it in its 1988 Arbitration Act, whilc Great Britain adopted it only partly in its 1996 Arbitration Act. 1 Tliere is an unrelenting doubt whether or not international law of contract does exist: see M Sornarajah, 71reMytlrof InternationalCJ//tractLa"" 15 J.W.T.L. 187, May/June 1981; Nassar, supra, footnote 4, p. 195; D.W. Bowett, StateContractswithAliens:CnnternporaryDeveloymeatsonCOlllpellS<1ti'J//forTenllillaliollorBrl'<1clz. 64 B.Y.I.L. 49, at 50, 1988; and A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, Coiiflict(iflaii,I.InternationalArlntratioti:PracliceandTrends, 9 Arb. Int'l 371, 1993; both ofthe latter cited by Nassar, supra, footnotc 4; Sornarajah, srgtrn, footnote 1, pp. 119-124. 110 For instance, the Libyan awards, except with respect to applicable (Libyan) law.
1211 D.P. O'Com�ell, 'TheRoteofInternationalLaw, in S. Hoffman (cd.), ConditionsofWorldOrder, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1966, p. 49, at p. 54; also cited in Dolzer, suyra, footnote 92, at p. 555. 121 H. Mosler, T6eInternationalSocietyAsaLe,qalCommunity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Haguc, 1980, p. 111; also cited by Dolzer, ibid., at p. 561, note 35. 122 Beda Wortmann, ChoiceofLawByArbitrators:17".ApplicableConfürtofLawsSystems, 14 Arb. Int'l 97, at 102, 1998. 121 For instance, per David A. Soley, "The Convention is a powerfitl tool in depoliticising investment disputes": IcsiDI/IIple/ll('//t<1tioll:AnEffcctipeAlternativetoInternationalCmtfiict, 19 International Lawyer 28, p. 521, 1985.
�=; For instance, it is not easy to see any difference with respect to applicable law between the reasonings in ÄPP,Slipm, footnote 103, and such discredited awards (mostly suspected to be rather political than legal pronouncernents) as Toyco/Caliasticv.Libya, (1978) 17 ILM 1, or SapphireInternationalPetroleumLtd.v.NationalIranianOilCo., 35 Ilk 136. m It is reported that this is already the case with respect to some Asian States; see Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, pp. 10(r107.
121 Decree No. 56 of 1979. Now of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised cdition. 127 Robert B. von Mehren and P. Nicholas Kourides, InternationalArbitrationsBetwemStatesandForeignPrivatePersons:TheLibyatrNationalisationCases, 75 A.J.I.L. 476, at 549, 1981. 12" Icsil) Case No. Ai�B/78/1. 129 See, for instance, Ipitradev.FederalRepublicof Nigeria, 465 F. Supp 824 (01)<: 1978); and Trendtex,supra, footnote 20.
130 This case is named in this article along with a few others because the partics do not mind. See supra, footnote 80 and accompanying text. 131 There is a similar upsurge of interest in arbitration in all sectors of thc economy. This writer has becn or is involved in other arbitrations in different aspects of the economy,.