Updated Background Paper on Annulment for the Administrative Council of ICSID* May 5, 2016 *This paper does not constitute legal advice. The information in this paper is current to April 15, 2016. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Purpose of Background Paper ................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction to the Annulment Mechanism in the ICSID Convention .................................. 1 III. The Drafting History of the Annulment Provisions in the ICSID Convention...................... 2 A. The Origin of the Annulment Provision ....................................................................... 2 B. Preliminary Draft ICSID Convention – 1963 ............................................................... 4 C. Regional Consultative Meetings – 1964 ....................................................................... 5 D. First Draft Convention – September 1964 .................................................................... 6 E. Legal Committee Meetings – 1964 ............................................................................... 7 F. Revised Draft Convention – December 1964 ............................................................... 8 IV. The Conduct of an Annulment Proceeding ............................................................................ 9 A. Filing an Application for Annulment ............................................................................ 9 B. Constitution of an ad hoc Committee ......................................................................... 12 C. The Proceeding ........................................................................................................... 15 (i) Applicable Provisions ....................................................................................... 16 (ii) The First Session ............................................................................................... 17 (iii) Advances to ICSID ............................................................................................ 17 (iv) Stay of Enforcement .......................................................................................... 18 (v) Hearing and Post-Hearing Phase ....................................................................... 22 D. The Decision on Annulment ....................................................................................... 23 E. Resubmission Proceedings.......................................................................................... 31 V. Interpretation of the Annulment Mechanism, the Role of the ad hoc Committee, and the Individual Grounds for Annulment ..................................................................................... 31 A. The General Standards Identified in the Drafting History and ICSID Cases ............. 31 B. The Interpretation of Specific Grounds ...................................................................... 53 (i) Improper Constitution of the Tribunal .............................................................. 53 (ii) Manifest Excess of Powers ............................................................................... 54 (a) Manifest Excess of Powers Relating to Jurisdiction ....................................... 56 (b) Manifest Excess of Powers Relating to the Applicable Law........................... 57 (iii) Corruption on the Part of a Tribunal Member ................................................... 58 (iv) Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Procedure .............................. 59 (v) Failure to State the Reasons on which the Award is Based .............................. 60 VI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 62 i ANNEXES Annex 1: Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Annex 2: Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Annex 3: Bibliography on ICSID Annulment ii I. Purpose of Background Paper 1. This paper is an updated version of the Background Paper on Annulment for the Administrative Council of ICSID dated August 2, 2012.1 It provides new data and updated charts and tables concerning developments in case law on annulment from August 2, 2012 through April 15, 2016.2 In particular, it considers 37 new annulment proceedings, 22 new annulment decisions and 19 new decisions on the stay of enforcement of an award issued since the original Background Paper was published. II. Introduction to the Annulment Mechanism in the ICSID Convention 2. One of the unique features of the ICSID system is its autonomous nature. ICSID arbitration is known as self-contained, or de-localized, arbitration because local courts in any particular State have no role in the ICSID proceeding. Instead, the ICSID Convention and rules contain all provisions necessary for the arbitration of disputes, including provisions addressing the institution of proceedings, jurisdiction, procedure, the award to be rendered by the Tribunal, post-award remedies, and recognition and enforcement of the award.3 3. An important aspect of the self-contained nature of the system is the remedies available to the parties after an award has been rendered. ICSID awards are binding on the disputing parties, may not be appealed and are not subject to any remedies except those provided for in the Convention.4 As a result, unlike other international arbitral awards, ICSID awards cannot be challenged before national courts. Challenges to ICSID awards must be brought within the framework of the Convention and pursuant to its provisions. 4. The choice of remedies offered by the ICSID Convention reflects a deliberate election by the drafters of the Convention to ensure finality of awards. The only way to review an award is pursuant to the five specific remedies provided by the Convention. These remedies are:  rectification (Article 49) – the Tribunal can rectify any clerical, arithmetical or similar error in its award; 1 The original background paper was prepared to assist Contracting States at the 45 th Annual Meeting of the ICSID Administrative Council on September 23, 2011. 2 The ICSID Secretariat takes no position in this paper as to whether a specific decision of an ICSID ad hoc Committee is correct or is within the proper scope of review allowed by Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. Annex 1, which is attached to this paper, lists all annulment cases, including the full and short form citations, members of the Tribunals and ad hoc Committees, and the outcome in each case. 3 In accordance with Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, an award must be recognized by all ICSID Contracting States and pecuniary obligations imposed by an award are enforceable as a final judgment of the courts of a Contracting State. 4 ICSID Convention Article 53. 1  supplementary decision (Article 49) – the Tribunal may decide any question it omitted to decide in its award;  interpretation (Article 50) – the Tribunal may interpret its award where there is a dispute between the parties as to the meaning or scope of the award rendered;  revision (Article 51) – the Tribunal may revise its award on the basis of a newly discovered fact of such a nature as to decisively affect the award; and  annulment (Article 52) – an ad hoc Committee may fully or partially annul an award on the basis of one or more of the following grounds: (a) the Tribunal was not properly constituted; (b) the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers; (c) there was corruption on the part of a Tribunal member; (d) there was a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or (e) the award failed to state the reasons on which it is based. 5. The following sections focus on the annulment remedy. Section III describes the drafting history of the annulment provisions in the Convention, Section IV outlines the conduct of an annulment proceeding before ICSID and Section V describes the general standards and the grounds for annulment invoked in ICSID case law. III. The Drafting History of the Annulment Provisions in the ICSID Convention 6. The approval of the ICSID Convention by the Executive Directors of the World Bank in 1965 was preceded by five years of negotiation and consultation among government officials and international legal experts. It involved preparatory work by World Bank staff and Executive Directors in 1961 and 1962, a series of Regional Consultative Meetings of Experts convened by the World Bank in 1963 and 1964, and meetings of a Legal Committee consisting of representatives of all interested States held at the end of 1964. The final text was approved by the Executive Directors on March 18, 1965 and came into force on October 14, 1966.5 As of April 15, 2016, there were 152 Contracting States to ICSID. A. The Origin of the Annulment Provision 7. The grounds for annulment in the ICSID Convention derive from the 1953 United Nations International Law Commission Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure (“ILC Draft”), which was an effort to codify existing international law on arbitral procedure in State-to- State arbitration.6 The ILC recognized that the finality of an award is an essential feature 5 For a summary of steps in drafting the Convention, see ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention: Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States Vol. I-IV (1970) (“History”), Vol. I, 2-10. 6 See Documents of the Fifth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly, [1953] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 211, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1953/Add.1 (“1953 ILC Yearbook II”) (Article 30 of the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure); Aron Broches, “Observations on the 2 of arbitral practice, but also recognized that there was a need for “exceptional remedies calculated to uphold the judicial character of the award as well as the will of the parties as a source of the jurisdiction of the tribunal.”7 It thus “sought to reconcile finality of the award with the need to prevent flagrant cases of excess of jurisdiction and injustice.”8 During its deliberations, the ILC decided that no appeal against an arbitral award should be allowed, but that the validity of an award might be challenged “within rigidly fixed limits.”9 An independent body, the International Court of Justice, would rule on whether a challenge should lead to the annulment of the award.10 8. The provision in the ILC Draft read as follows: (1) The validity of an award may be challenged by either party on one or more of the following grounds: (a) That the tribunal has exceeded its powers; (b) That there was corruption on the part of a member of the tribunal; (c) That there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure, including failure to state the reasons for the award.11 9. During its deliberations, the ILC debated the scope of specific grounds, including whether an excess of jurisdiction might warrant annulment, while misapplication of the law would not.12 Ultimately, the ILC Draft made no attempt to define what conduct each ground would cover, with the exception of the express reference to the “failure to state the reasons for the award” as an example of a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure.13 The accompanying Report to the General Assembly stated that “[a]fter considerable Finality of ICSID Awards” in Selected Essays: World Bank, ICSID, and Other Subjects of Public and Private International Law 299 (1995). 7 1953 ILC Yearbook II, supra note 6, at 202. 8 Broches, supra note 6, at 298; see also comments by the ILC’s special rapporteur, Mr. Georges Scelles, Summary Records of the Fifth Session, [1953] 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 46, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1953 (“1953 ILC Yearbook I”). 9 1953 ILC Yearbook II, supra note 6, at 205. 10 Id. at 211 (Article 31 of the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure). 11 The ILC adopted the Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure in 1958. The provision on annulment, Article 35, remained the same as to grounds (a) and (b), but ground (c) was phrased “failure to state the reasons for the award or a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure” and an additional ground was added: “(d) that the undertaking to arbitrate or the compromis is a nullity.” Documents of the Tenth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly, [1958] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 86, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1958/Add.1. Interestingly, the drafters of the ICSID Convention chose to model the ICSID annulment provision on the 1953 ILC Draft and not on the final provision adopted by the ILC in 1958. 12 Summary Records of the Fourth Session, [1952] 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 84, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1952; 1953 ILC Yearbook I, supra note 8, at 44. 13 Documents of the Fourth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly, [1952] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 66, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1952/Add.1; 1953 ILC Yearbook II, supra note 6, at 205. 3 discussion [the ILC] decided, having regard to the paramount requirement of finality, not to amplify - - subject to one apparent exception [the failure to state the reasons for the award] - - the grounds on which the annulment of the award may be sought.”14 B. Preliminary Draft ICSID Convention – 1963 10. The ICSID Convention’s earliest draft, an internal World Bank document entitled “Working Paper in the Form of a Draft Convention” of June 5, 1962, made no provision for annulment.15 However, a text on annulment identical to the 1953 ILC Draft was included in the Preliminary Draft of a Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (“Preliminary Draft”) in 1963.16 The Preliminary Draft was a second working paper prepared by World Bank staff for consideration at the regional consultative meetings of experts. Section 13(1) read as follows: (1) The validity of an award may be challenged by either party on one or more of the following grounds: (a) that the Tribunal has exceeded its powers; (b) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal; or (c) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure, including failure to state the reasons for the award.17 11. The comment accompanying Section 13 explained the purpose of the provision: […] As a general rule the award of the Tribunal is final, and there is no provision for appeal. Sections 11 and 12, however, provide for interpretation and revision of the award, respectively. In addition, where there has been some violation of the fundamental principles of law governing the Tribunal’s proceedings such as are listed in Section 13, the aggrieved party may apply to the Chairman [of the Administrative Council of ICSID] for a declaration that the award is invalid. Under that section the Chairman is required to refer the matter to a Committee of three persons which shall be competent to declare the nullity of the award. It may be noted that this is not a procedure by way of appeal requiring consideration of the merits of the case, but one that merely calls for an affirmative or negative ruling based upon one or other of the three grounds listed in Section 13(1).18 14 1953 ILC Yearbook II, supra note 6, at 205. 15 History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 19. 16 Id. at 184 (October 15, 1963). 17 Id. at 217 (Article IV, Section 13 of Preliminary Draft of a Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States). 18 Id. at 218 & 219. 4 C. Regional Consultative Meetings – 1964 12. The inclusion of a provision on annulment in the ICSID Convention does not appear to have been questioned or debated, nor is there any account of discussion concerning the general purpose and scope of annulment in the drafting history of the Convention. Indeed, a summary report of the meetings by the General Counsel of the World Bank concluded that no controversial issues of policy were raised by the draft annulment provision, but that a considerable number of detailed suggestions of a technical character had been raised.19 The specific grounds for annulment were discussed at a series of Regional Consultative Meetings. 13. During the first set of Regional Consultative Meetings, legal experts from various countries made suggestions for changes to the Preliminary Draft.20 Among other things, a proposal was made that the grounds for annulment be set out in greater detail and modeled on commercial arbitration laws.21 However, Aron Broches, then General Counsel of the World Bank and Chair of the Regional Consultative Meetings and the subsequent meetings of the Legal Committee, discouraged the comparison with commercial arbitration.22 He recalled that “it had been fully recognized that only limited recourse had been provided and that acceptance of the binding character of the award went beyond what was normally expected in respect of an arbitral tribunal.”23 14. A concern was raised by a legal expert from Germany that annulment posed a risk of frustrating awards and therefore the annulment provision should be made more restrictive. To that effect, this expert proposed a requirement that an excess of powers be “manifest” to warrant annulment.24 In the context of the discussions on the meaning of “excess of powers,” Chairman Broches confirmed that the intention was to cover the situation where a decision of the Tribunal went beyond the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement.25 15. Other suggestions were to add the words “a serious misapplication of the law” or “including the failure to apply the proper law” to the ground concerning excess of powers.26 In this connection, Chairman Broches remarked that “a mistake in the application of the law would not be a valid ground for annulment of the award,” stating that “[a] mistake of law as well as a mistake of fact constituted an inherent risk in judicial or arbitral decision for which appeal was not provided.”27 However, the legal expert from Lebanon observed 19 Id. at 573 & 574. 20 These meetings were held in the period December 1963 through May 1964 in Addis Ababa, Santiago, Geneva and Bangkok. Id. at 236-584. 21 Id. at 423. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id.; Broches, supra note 6, at 303. 25 History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 517. 26 Id. at 423 & 517. 27 Id. at 518. 5 that if the parties had agreed to apply a particular law and the Tribunal in fact applied a different law, the award would violate the parties’ arbitration agreement and could be annulled.28 16. A further suggestion sought to clarify that “departure from a fundamental rule of procedure” excluded challenges on the basis of inobservance of ordinary arbitration rules, as opposed to “breaches of procedural rules which would constitute a violation of the rules of natural justice.”29 One proposal was to add the phrase “a serious departure from the principles of natural justice.”30 Another proposal was to replace the term by “fundamental principles of justice.”31 Chairman Broches subsequently explained that “fundamental rule of procedure” was to be understood to have a wider connotation, and to include under its ambit the so-called principles of natural justice. As an example, he mentioned the parties’ right to be heard.32 D. First Draft Convention – September 1964 17. In light of the discussions at the Regional Consultative Meetings, World Bank staff prepared a further Draft of a Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (the “First Draft”),33 for consideration by the Legal Committee. This Committee was composed of experts representing member governments of the World Bank. The annulment provision in the First Draft read as follows: (1) Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary-General on one or more of the following grounds: (a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted; (b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; (c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal; (d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or (e) failure to state the reasons for the award, unless the parties have agreed that reasons need not be stated.34 28 Id. 29 Id. at 517. 30 Id. at 271 & 423. 31 Id. at 480. 32 Id. 33 Id. at 610 (September 11, 1964). 34 Id. at 635 (Article 55(1)). 6 E. Legal Committee Meetings – 1964 18. The Legal Committee held a series of meetings in November and December 1964, chaired by Broches. At the meetings, clarification was sought by an Ethiopian Committee member regarding the meaning of the additional ground of improper constitution of the Tribunal.35 It was explained that this expression was “intended to cover a variety of situations such as, for instance, absence of agreement or invalid agreement between the parties, the fact that the investor was not a national of a Contracting State, that a member of the Tribunal was not entitled to be an arbitrator, etc.”36 Two experts were in favor of deleting the ground of improper constitution but the majority of the Legal Committee decided to retain this ground.37 19. The Ethiopian Committee member also asked whether there was a contradiction in providing that a Tribunal is the sole judge of its competence and at the same time providing for excess of power as a ground of annulment.38 Chairman Broches replied that: …the expression ‘manifestly exceeded its powers’ concerned the cases […] where the Tribunal would have gone beyond the scope of agreement of the parties or would have thus decided points which had not been submitted to it or had been improperly submitted to it. […] the ad hoc Committee would limit itself to cases of manifest excess of those powers.39 20. Suggestions that the word “manifestly” be omitted were defeated by a majority of 23 to 11 votes.40 A proposal to include as a ground of annulment that the Tribunal had made a decision beyond the scope of the submissions was also defeated on a vote.41 21. Chairman Broches confirmed during the meetings that failure to apply the proper law could amount to an excess of power if the parties had agreed on an applicable law.42 One proposal suggested adding the “manifestly incorrect application of the law” by the Tribunal as a ground of annulment, but it was defeated by a vote of 17 to 8.43 22. In regard to the ground concerning corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal, there were suggestions by various legal experts to replace “corruption” with 35 Id. at 850. 36 Id. 37 Id. at 852 & 853. 38 Id. at 850. 39 Id. 40 Id. at 851 & 852. 41 Id. at 853. 42 Id. at 851. 43 Id. at 851, 853 & 854. 7 “misconduct,”44 “lack of integrity”45 or “a defect in moral character.”46 There were further suggestions that the ground be limited to cases where the corruption was evidenced by a judgment of a court, or in instances where there was “reasonable proof that corruption might exist.”47 These proposals were put to a vote and defeated by a large majority.48 23. The ground for annulment relating to a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure had become a stand-alone ground under the First Draft. A discussion was held about whether to add the words “or substance” after the words “rule of procedure,” but the proposal was seen as confusing.49 A further suggestion to replace the word “rule” by “principle” was also rejected because the reference to “fundamental” rules of procedure was considered to be a clear reference to principles.50 Likewise, a specific reference noting that both parties must have a fair hearing was defeated.51 24. The last ground, failure to state reasons, also became a stand-alone ground in the First Draft. The possibility of raising this ground of annulment was subject to the parties’ agreement on whether reasons for the award would have to be stated. The rationale for this discretion was to reconcile it with another provision which allowed the parties to agree that the award need not state the reasons.52 However, during one of the Legal Committee’s meetings, it was decided to remove the parties’ discretion in this regard and, as a consequence, the discretion was also removed from the ground for annulment.53 F. Revised Draft Convention – December 1964 25. Following the Legal Committee’s meetings, a Revised Draft Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“Revised Draft”) was prepared.54 Article 52 of the Revised Draft read as follows: (1) Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary-General on one or more of the following grounds: 44 Id. at 851. 45 Id. at 852. 46 Id. 47 Id. at 851. 48 Id. at 852. 49 Id. at 853 & 854. 50 Id. at 854. 51 Id. at 853. 52 Id. at 633. Article 51(3) of the First Draft provided: “Except as the parties otherwise agree: (a) the award shall state the reasons upon which it is based.” 53 Id. at 816. 54 Id. at 911 (December 11, 1964). 8 (a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted; (b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; (c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal; (d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or (e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.55 26. Since the First Draft, the only modification made to the provision was to subsection (1)(e).56 As explained above, the ground was no longer subject to the parties’ agreement that reasons need not be stated and, therefore, the words “unless the parties have agreed that reasons need not be stated” were deleted. 27. The Revised Draft was submitted for consideration by the Executive Directors of the World Bank. While further changes were subsequently made to other provisions of the Revised Draft, Article 52 remained the same and thus became the text of the ICSID Convention. IV. The Conduct of an Annulment Proceeding 28. In addition to stipulating the grounds for annulment, Article 52 of the ICSID Convention sets out the general procedural framework for an annulment proceeding. It is implemented by the ICSID Arbitration Rules, which apply to all ICSID Convention arbitration proceedings and govern ICSID post-award remedy proceedings. ICSID Arbitration Rules 50 and 52 through 55 implement the annulment remedy in the Convention, including the institution of annulment proceedings, the appointment of an ad hoc Committee to decide the application, and stays of enforcement of the award while the annulment application is pending. The various steps in an annulment proceeding are described below. A. Filing an Application for Annulment 29. Either disputing party may initiate an annulment proceeding by filing an application for annulment with the ICSID Secretary-General. The application must: (i) identify the award to which it relates; (ii) indicate the date of the application; (iii) state in detail the grounds on which it is based pursuant to Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention; and (iv) be accompanied by the payment of a fee for lodging the application.57 It must be filed within 120 days after the date on which the award (or any subsequent decision or correction) was rendered, except that, in the case of corruption on the part of a Tribunal member, the 55 Id. at 926 & 927. 56 As to ground (d), in the French version of the Revised Draft, the word “dérogation” was replaced by “inobservation” and in the Spanish version the words “grave apartamiento” were replaced by “quebrantamiento.” 57 See Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (“Arbitration Rules”), Arbitration Rule 50(1) . The fee for lodging an application for annulment is currently US$25,000. 9 application may be filed within 120 days after discovery of the corruption, and in any event within three years after the date on which the award was rendered.58 The Secretary-General must refuse registration of an application for annulment that is not filed within the prescribed time limits.59 30. The application for annulment must concern an ICSID award, which is the final decision concluding a case. Since there can be only one award in the ICSID system, the parties must wait until that award is rendered before initiating any post-award remedies.60 An application for annulment concerning a decision issued prior to the award (e.g. a decision on a challenge, a provisional measure, or a decision upholding jurisdiction) cannot be challenged before it becomes part of the eventual award, even if it raises issues that may constitute the basis for an annulment application.61 31. Since the entry into force of the ICSID Convention in 1966, annulment proceedings have been instituted in 87 cases.62 In 3 of those cases, annulment proceedings were instituted a second time after a resubmission proceeding, meaning 90 annulment proceedings have been instituted in total. Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Convention Arbitrations Registered 505 Convention Arbitrations Concluded 334 Convention Awards Rendered 228 Annulment Proceedings Instituted 90 Annulment Proceedings Concluded 72 Annulment Proceedings Pending 18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 32. A greater number of annulment applications have been registered since 2001 than in prior years. This reflects the increased number of awards issued, and not an increased rate of 58 Arbitration Rule 50(3)(b); ICSID Convention Article 52(2). 59 Id. 60 See in particular ICSID Convention Articles 48-49 (addressing “the award”). Under the same principle, only the award is capable of enforcement under ICSID Convention Article 54. For enforcement purposes, ICSID Convention Article 53(2) provides that an “award” includes any decision interpreting, revising or annulling such award. 61 Annulment applications in respect of decisions on jurisdiction in pending cases have consistently been refused registration. See Broches, supra note 6, at 302. 62 See “Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings,” Annex 1. 10 annulment.63 The rate of annulment for 2011– present is 3 percent, while the rate of annulment for 1971 – 2000 was 13 percent and for 2001 – 2010 was 8 percent.64 Annulment Proceedings under the ICSID Convention - Outcomes 1971 - Present 120 101 100 96 80 60 40 23 18 20 13 14 9 8 4 3 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011- Number of Convention awards rendered Number of decisions rejecting the application for annulment Number of decisions annulling the award in part or in full Number of annulment proceedings discontinued 33. Fifty-two percent of all annulment applications have been registered since January 2011, at about an even level per year. Annulment Applications Registered by ICSID Fiscal Year 2011 - Present 12 11 11 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 4 2 0 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 to Apr. 15, 2016 63 See infra para. 68. 64 The rate is based on the number of awards rendered and the number of partial and full annulments of awards. 11 34. The annulment remedy has been pursued by both claimants and respondents to ICSID proceedings. Approximately 54 percent of annulment proceedings were initiated by respondents (in all instances States or State entities) while 40 percent of the proceedings were initiated by claimants. In 5 cases (approximately 6 percent of all annulment proceedings), both parties filed an application for annulment.65 Annulment Proceeding by Instituting Party 6% (5) 40% (36) 54% (49) Annulment Application filed by State Party Annulment Application filed by National of Another State Annulment Application filed by both Parties B. Constitution of an ad hoc Committee 35. Once an application for annulment is registered, the Chairman of the Administrative Council must appoint an ad hoc Committee of three persons to decide the application.66 The function of an ad hoc Committee is either to reject the application for annulment or to annul the award or a part thereof on the basis of the grounds enumerated in Article 52.67 Its function is not to rule on the merits of the parties’ dispute if it decides to annul, which would be the task of a new Tribunal should either party resubmit the dispute following annulment of the award.68 36. Ad hoc Committee members are appointed from the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators, which consists of persons designated by ICSID Contracting States and ten designees named by the Chairman of the Administrative Council.69 The ICSID Convention requires that Panel designees be “persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the fields of 65 Fifteen applications sought partial annulment of the award. As noted in para. 67, applicant-Nationals of Another State and applicant-States have had a similar rate of success in annulment applications. 66 Arbitration Rule 52(1); ICSID Convention Article 52(3). 67 ICSID Convention Article 52(3). 68 Id. at Article 52(6). 69 See id. at Articles 12-16. Each Contracting State may designate up to four persons of any nationality to the Panel of Arbitrators, for renewable periods of six years. 12 law, commerce, industry or finance, who may be relied upon to exercise independent judgment.”70 Both arbitrators and ad hoc Committee members are expected to be independent and impartial, and to decide the case solely on the basis of the facts before them and the applicable law. 37. Unlike the Centre’s appointment of Tribunal members, which may in certain circumstances be made outside of the Panel of Arbitrators with the parties’ consent,71 the Chairman of the Administrative Council is restricted to appointing ad hoc Committee members from persons on the Panel of Arbitrators.72 Many persons on the Panel of Arbitrators have served as members of both Tribunals and Committees. 38. The Panel of Arbitrators currently consists of 424 persons designated by 117 of the 152 Member States and the Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID.73 As of April 15, 2016, ICSID appointed 271 ad hoc Committee members from the Panel, 141 of whom were appointed since 2011. Appointments to ICSID ad hoc Committees by Decade 160 141 140 120 112 100 80 60 40 20 12 6 0 0 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011- Number of Appointments 39. In addition to the general qualifications required for designation to the Panel of Arbitrators (see above, paragraph 36), a member of an ad hoc Committee must meet specific requirements prescribed by the ICSID Convention. First, the member of the ad hoc Committee cannot have been a member of the Tribunal which rendered the award or be of the same nationality as any of that Tribunal’s members.74 Second, the member cannot have the same nationality as the disputing parties (State and National of Another State) and cannot have been designated to the Panel of Arbitrators either by the State party to the 70 Id. at Article 14(1). 71 ICSID appoints Tribunal members either by agreement of the parties or under the default rule in ICSID Convention Article 38, which can be invoked by either party if the Tribunal has not been constituted within 90 days from registration of the case. Id. at Article 38; see also Arbitration Rule 4. 72 ICSID Convention Article 52(3); Arbitration Rule 52(1). 73 Members of the Panels of Conciliators and Arbitrators, April 2016, Doc. ICSID/10, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. 74 ICSID Convention Article 52(3). 13 dispute or the State whose national is a party to the dispute.75 Third, the member cannot have acted as a conciliator in the same dispute.76 As a result, in each annulment proceeding there are usually 5 or more excluded nationalities.77 40. A number of case-specific factors are considered, in addition to the formal requirements for appointment to an ad hoc Committee established by the ICSID Convention. For example, the languages used in the Tribunal proceeding and likely to be used before the ad hoc Committee are relevant, as is the experience of each candidate, including their past and current appointments. The internal process usually involves consultations among counsel, case management Team Leaders and the Secretary-General. Before the name of the candidate is proposed to the parties, the Centre researches whether there are any conflicts of interest and, if none are found, the candidate is asked to confirm that he/she is free of any conflicts, has time to dedicate to the proceeding, and is willing to act as a member of the ad hoc Committee. 41. Unlike the process for appointment of Tribunal members,78 the ICSID Convention imposes no obligation on the Chairman to consult the parties about ad hoc Committee appointments. Nonetheless, before ad hoc Committee members are appointed, ICSID informs the parties of the proposed appointees and circulates their curricula vitae. This gives the parties an opportunity to submit comments indicating that there might be a manifest lack of the qualities required for serving as a Committee member;79 for example, that there is a conflict of interest which the Centre or the candidate was unaware of. In exceptional circumstances, a proposed candidate is withdrawn and replaced by another person. 42. The Centre makes its best effort to complete the appointment process as soon as possible after registration of the annulment application. In recent years, the average time to complete the process has been reduced to 8 weeks, and efforts are being made to further reduce that average. This includes the time spent corresponding with the parties. 43. Approximately 41percent of all Committee member appointments have been nationals of States which are classified by the World Bank Group as developing countries.80 This corresponds to slightly more than one developing country national per case.81 The number of women appointed to ad hoc Committees has historically been low (only 15 ad hoc 75 Id. 76 Id. 77 These requirements cannot be modified by agreement of the parties in annulment proceedings. This contrasts with Tribunal proceedings, where an arbitrator of an excluded nationality may be appointed in accordance with Arbitration Rule 1(3). 78 ICSID Convention Articles 37-40. 79 Id. at Articles 14(1) & 57. 80 See Economic Country Classification available at http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country- and-lending-groups. Low- and middle-income economies are referred to as developing economies. The classifications are set each year on July 1. 81 For the nationality of the members of ad hoc Committees and its classification at the time of appointment, see Annex 1. 14 Committee appointments involved women to date). This reflects the few women designated to the Panel of Arbitrators (approximately 13 percent of the members on the Panel of Arbitrators are women).82 44. Parties sometimes request that ad hoc Committee members meet specific criteria; for example that they have investment arbitration experience, they do not sit on any pending case with any of the members of the original Tribunal or that they have not decided any legal issue similar to that considered in the annulment proceeding. At the same time, there is a call for greater diversity in ICSID arbitration and for the expansion of the pool of arbitrators and ad hoc Committee members. ICSID endeavors to take all of these considerations into account as far as possible when considering candidates from the Panel of Arbitrators, with due regard to the nationality restrictions. Appointment to ICSID ad hoc Committees - Origin of Appointees 41% (112) Appointments of nationals from developing countries 59% (159) Appointments of nationals from other countries C. The Proceeding 45. Once the ad hoc Committee members have accepted their appointments,83 the Secretary- General of ICSID notifies the parties of the constitution of the Committee. The party requesting annulment of the award is usually referred to as the “Applicant,” and the other party is usually the “Respondent” or “Respondent on Annulment.” A claimant in the Tribunal proceeding may thus become the respondent in the annulment proceeding. 46. A Secretary to the ad hoc Committee is appointed from among ICSID staff to assist the Committee and the parties. Where possible, the Secretary of the Committee is the same person as the Secretary of the Tribunal. This ensures the best possible assistance in view of the Secretary’s knowledge of the procedural history and submissions in the original proceeding. However, parties sometimes ask the Secretariat to appoint a different person, which the Secretariat is willing to do. 82 In September 2011 the Chairman of the Administrative Council designated 3 women and 6 developing country nationals out of 10 designees to the Chairman’s list for the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators. 83 The members of the ad hoc Committee must sign a declaration in a form analogous to that specified in Arbitration Rule 6(2) for Tribunal members. 15 (i) Applicable Provisions 47. The Arbitration Rules apply, mutatis mutandis, to the proceeding before the ad hoc Committee.84 This means that the Rules will apply with the changes necessary to take into account the fact that the proceeding is an annulment proceeding. 48. In addition, Article 52(4) of the ICSID Convention provides that Articles 41-45, 48, 49, 53 and 54 apply mutatis mutandis before the ad hoc Committee. By citing specific articles of the Convention, Article 52(4) implies that other provisions of the Convention do not apply to annulment. As a result, for example, it has been disputed whether Article 47 of the ICSID Convention concerning a Tribunal’s power to recommend provisional measures applies to annulment proceedings.85 Similarly, it has been argued that Article 52(4) does not allow a member of an ad hoc Committee to be challenged for a manifest lack of the qualities required by Article 14(1) of the Convention, suggesting that an ad hoc Committee member could not be disqualified.86 However, this interpretation has been rejected in two annulment proceedings in which the ad hoc Committees found that they had the power to rule on disqualification but dismissed the requests.87 49. With regard to the expedited procedure to dispose of unmeritorious claims at the preliminary stage of a proceeding introduced with the 2006 Arbitration Rules (Arbitration Rule 41(5)), ad hoc Committees have confirmed that this procedure also applies in annulment proceedings, but that the standard to accept an objection made under this provision is higher in the context of an annulment.88 With regard to non-disputing party submissions under Arbitration Rule 37(2), one ad hoc Committee rejected such an 84 Arbitration Rule 53. 85 See Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey , ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Applicant’s Request for Provisional Measures (May 7, 2012), available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. The ad hoc Committee expressed doubts about its power to recommend provisional measures but rejected the request on other grounds. See also Micula, paras. 47-48, quoting from the ad hoc Committee’s Decision on the Claimants’ Request for Provisional Measures of August 18, 2014, para. 37: “Taking into consideration the limited scope of the annulment proceeding, at this stage of the annulment proceeding, as distinguished from the proceedings before the Tribunal, the rights of the Respondents on annulment relate mainly to the enforcement of the Award.” 86 See ICSID Convention Articles 57 & 58. 87 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on the Challenge to the President of the Committee (October 3, 2001), available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; Nations Energy, Inc. and others v. Republic of Panama , ICSID Case No. ARB/06/19, Decisión sobre la Propuesta de Recusación del Dr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov (September 7, 2011), available at http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0561.pdf. In Nations, the parties did not dispute the power of the ad hoc Committee to rule on the request for disqualification. 88 See Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Decision on Elsamex S.A.’s Preliminary Objections (January 7, 2014), paras. 124-125, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; and Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/22, Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) (March 8, 2016), paras. 80-81, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. In Micula, the ad hoc Committee dismissed the application because it found that the 2006 Arbitration Rules did not apply to that case. See Micula, paras. 14-20. 16 application,89 while another Committee allowed a non-disputing party to file a written submission.90 (ii) The First Session 50. The procedure before an ad hoc Committee normally corresponds to the procedure before a Tribunal. Ad hoc Committees must afford both parties the right to be heard and must respect the equality of the parties. There is an assumption that the parties’ procedural agreements in the original proceeding will remain the same in the annulment proceeding, for example with respect to the choice of procedural language, the number and sequence of written pleadings and the parties’ representatives.91 Nonetheless, the ad hoc Committee usually convenes a first session with the parties to discuss procedural matters, and it is not uncommon to vary certain arrangements, for example concerning the applicable rules, procedural language and place of proceedings. In most cases, the parties agree on a timetable involving two rounds of pleadings on the application for annulment (Memorial, Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder) and an oral hearing. In recent years, the time allowed for written pleadings rarely exceeded 3 months per party for the first round and 2 months per party for the second round. 51. The parties typically file with their written pleadings the factual and legal evidence from the original proceeding that they wish to rely on in the annulment proceeding. The record before the ad hoc Committee is usually limited to the factual evidence before the original Tribunal. However, new factual evidence could potentially be admitted.92 (iii) Advances to ICSID 52. Unlike the Tribunal proceedings, the Applicant is solely responsible for making all advance payments requested by ICSID in an annulment proceeding, unless the parties agree otherwise. These advances cover the hearing expenses such as transcription, translation and interpretation, the administrative fee of ICSID as well as fees and expenses of the ad hoc Committee (“Costs of Proceeding”). The payments are made without prejudice to the right of the ad hoc Committee to decide how and by whom the costs ultimately should be 89 Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala , ICSID Case No. ARB/09/5, Decision on the Non-Disputing Party’s Application to File a Written Submission (Februar y 12, 2014), mentioned in Iberdrola, paras. 17 and 18. 90 Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on the EC’s Application to file a Written Submission (December 3, 2014), mentioned in Micula, paras. 61-64. The ad hoc Committee indicated that a request by a non-disputing party in annulment proceedings “must be dealt with in a more restrictive and circumscribed manner.” Id., para. 63. This proceeding was governed by the 2003 Arbitration Rules. 91 See Note B to Arbitration Rule 53 of the annotated notes to the ICSID Regulations and Rules, 1968, Doc. ICSID/4/Rev. 1. 92 See e.g., Sempra, para. 74; see also Pierre Mayer, “To What Extent Can an Ad Hoc Committee Review the Factual Findings of an Arbitral Tribunal,” in Annulment of ICSID Awards 243 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Yas Banifatemi eds., 2004); Peter D. Trooboff, “To What Extent May an Ad Hoc Committee Review the Factual Findings of an Arbitral Tribunal Based on a Procedural Error,” in Annulment of ICSID Awards 251 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Yas Banifatemi eds., 2004). 17 paid.93 Consequently, an Applicant must be prepared to fund the entire proceeding subject to the Committee’s ultimate decision on costs. 53. The Costs of Proceeding for annulments concluded since July 2010 have averaged US$388,000.94 The fees and expenses of ad hoc Committee members represented 74 percent of these costs, while the hearing costs and ICSID administrative fee accounted for the other 26 percent of these costs. (iv) Stay of Enforcement 54. An Applicant may in its application for annulment, or either party may at any time during the proceeding, request a stay of enforcement of all or part of the Tribunal award. 95 The stay of enforcement could concern an award of damages, award of costs or some other form of relief ordered by the original Tribunal. The stay of enforcement may be either partial or full.96 If the request for stay is made in the application for annulment, the Secretary-General of ICSID must inform the parties of the provisional stay of enforcement when the application is registered.97 55. The provisional stay remains in place until the ad hoc Committee, on a priority basis, rules on the request after having given each party an opportunity to present its observations.98 56. Ad hoc Committees take into account the specific circumstances of each case when considering requests for a continued stay of enforcement of the award.99 Some have held that there is no presumption in favor of a stay of enforcement.100 Circumstances considered have included the risk of non-recovery of sums due under the award if the award is annulled, non-compliance with the award if the award is not annulled, any history of non- 93 Administrative and Financial Regulation 14(3)(e); ICSID Convention Article 52(4). See infra para. 65. 94 This includes one case in which such cost nearly exceeded US$1 million. Excluding this case, the average cost of an annulment proceeding amounts to approximately US$370,000. 95 ICSID Convention Article 52(5); Arbitration Rule 54(1). 96 For an example of a partial stay of enforcement of an award, see Tidewater Investment SRL and Tidewater Caribe, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Decision on the Applicant’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (February 29, 2016), available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. 97 ICSID Convention Article 52(5); Arbitration Rule 54(2). 98 Arbitration Rule 54(1) & (4). An expedited ruling may be requested, requiring the ad hoc Committee to decide within 30 days whether to continue the stay. The stay is automatically terminated if either party has requested an expedited ruling and the Committee does not continue the stay within 30 days of the request. See Arbitration Rule 54(2) and its explanatory note in ICSID Regulations and Rules, 1968, Doc. ICSID/4/Rev. 1. 99 Arbitration Rule 54(4). 100 See e.g., Micula, para. 33; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on the Stay of Enforcement of the Award (September 30, 2013), para. 47, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; Víctor Pey Casado and Fundación Presidente Allende v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on the Republic of Chile ’s Request for a Stay of Enforcement of the Unannulled Portion of the Award (May 16, 2013), para. 37, available at http://www.italaw.com/cases/829. 18 compliance with other awards or failure to pay advances to cover the costs of arbitration proceedings, adverse economic consequences on either party and the balance of both parties’ interests.101 57. If a stay is granted, the ad hoc Committee may modify or terminate the stay at the request of either party.102 A Committee may terminate a stay if the party requesting the stay of enforcement has failed to fulfill a condition for the stay ordered by the Committee ( e.g., the provision of adequate financial security in respect of the amount due under the award). If a stay is not terminated during the proceeding, it terminates automatically upon the issuance of the ad hoc Committee’s final decision on annulment.103 58. There have been a total of 43 requests for the stay of enforcement in the 90 registered annulments, 41 of which have led to Committee decisions.104 Thirty-six decisions granted the stay of enforcement. In 22 of those instances where a stay was granted, it was conditioned upon the issuance of some type of security or written undertaking. In 11 of those 22 cases, the stay was terminated because the condition had not been satisfied.105 101 See e.g., Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Rule 54 o f the ICSID Arbitration Rules) (March 5, 2009), para. 24, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; Tidewater Investment SRL and Tidewater Caribe, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Decision on the Applicant's Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (February 29, 2016), para. 35, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Rule 54 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules) (October 7, 2008), paras. 46- 53, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. 102 Arbitration Rule 54(3). 103 Id. If an ad hoc Committee annuls part of an award, it may at its discretion “order the temporary stay” of the unannulled part. This enables the Committee to consider any advantage that the partial annulment may confer given that the annulled portion might be reconsidered by a new tribunal under ICSID Convention Article 52(6). If a Tribunal is reconstituted following a partial annulment, a party may request the stay of enforcement of the unannulled portion of the award until the date of the new tribunal’s award . See Arbitration Rule 55(3). Although there have been several partial annulments with resubmissions, this situation has not yet occurred. 104 The Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Stay of Enforcement of the Award in Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18 and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/15 (November 12, 2012) has been counted as one decision for these purposes. 105 Repsol, para. 12; Vivendi II, para. 11; CDC, para. 16; Sempra, para. 29; EDF, para. 9; Micula, para. 37; Kılıç, para. 16; Lahoud, para. 17; Lemire, paras. 57 and 67 (stay terminated on April 2, 2012 and subsequently reinstated on December 21, 2012); Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia , ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee to Terminate the Stay of Enforcement of the Award (January 19, 2011), para. 8, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee on the Termination of the Stay of Enforcement of the Award (March 11, 2014), para. 35, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org. 19 Decisions on Stay of Enforcement Annulment Proceedings Instituted 90 Stay of Enforcement Requests 43 Requests Granted* 36 Conditional Stay Granted 22 Unconditional Stay Granted 14 Stay Terminated during Proceedings 11 *Excludes provisional stays by the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Secretary-General Decisions on the Stay of Enforcement of an Award in all ICSID Annulment Cases* Stay of Condition for Case Applicant Decision on Stay and Source of Publication Enforcement Stay 1. Amco v. Indonesia I Indonesia Granted Security May 17, 1985; Noted in 1 ICSID Rep. 509 (2003) ARB/81/1 2. Amco v. Indonesia II Indonesia Granted Security March 2, 1991; Available at 9 ICSID Rep. 59 (2006) ARB/81/1- Resubmission 3. SPP v. Egypt Egypt Stay agreed by Security agreed September 29, 1992; Noted in 8 ICSID REV. – the Parties by the Parties FILJ 264 (1993) ARB/84/3 4. MINE v. Guinea Guinea Granted No condition August 12, 1988; Available at 4 ICSID Rep. 111 (1997) ARB/84/4 5. Vivendi v. Argentina II Argentina Granted Written November 4, 2008; Noted in Decision on Undertaking Annulment ARB/97/3 – Resubmission English 6. Pey Casado v. Chile Chile Granted No Condition August 5, 2008; May 5, 2010; French Spanish English ARB/98/2 7. Wena Hotels v. Egypt Egypt Granted Security April 5, 2001; Available at 18 (10) MEALEY’S INT'L ARB. REP. 33 (2003) ARB/98/4 8. Mitchell v. DRC Democratic Granted No condition November 30, 2004; Republic of Congo English French ARB/99/7 9. Enron v. Argentina Argentina Granted No condition October 7, 2008; English Spanish ARB/01/3 10. MTD Equity v. Chile Chile Granted No condition June 1, 2005; English ARB/01/7 * Excludes provisional stays by the Secretary-General 20 Stay of Condition for Case Applicant Decision on Stay and Source of Publication Enforcement Stay 11. CMS Gas v. Argentina Argentina Granted Written September 1, 2006; Noted in Decision on Undertaking Annulment ARB/01/8 English Spanish 12. Repsol v. Petroecuador Petroecuador Granted Security December 22, 2005; Spanish ARB/01/10 13. Azurix v. Argentina Argentina Granted No condition December 28, 2007; English Spanish ARB/01/12 14. CDC Group v. Seychelles Seychelles Granted Security July 14, 2004; Available at 11 ICSID Rep. 225 (2007) ARB/02/14 15. Sempra v. Argentina Argentina Granted Security March 5, 2009; English Spanish ARB/02/16 16. Continental Casualty v. Argentina Argentina Granted No condition October 23, 2009; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/03/9 English Spanish 17. El Paso v. Argentina Argentina Granted No Condition November 14, 2012; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/03/15 English Spanish 18. EDF v. Argentina Argentina Granted Written July 18, 2013; Noted in Decision on Annulment Undertaking English Spanish ARB/03/23 19. Duke Energy v. Peru Peru Granted Written June 23, 2009; Noted in Decision on Annulment Undertaking English ARB/03/28 20. Total v. Argentina Argentina Rejected N/A December 4, 2014; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/04/1 English Spanish 21. SAUR v. Argentina Argentina Information not Information not March 1, 2016 publicly publicly ARB/04/4 available available 22. Transgabonais v. Gabon Gabon Granted Written March 13, 2009; Noted in Decision on Annulment Undertaking 26 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 214 (2011) (French; ARB/04/5 excerpts) 23. Rumeli v. Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Granted Written March 19, 2009; Noted in Decision on Annulment Undertaking English ARB/05/16 24. Kardassopoulos / Fuchs v. Georgia Georgia Granted Security November 12, 2010; English ARB/05/18; ARB/07/15 25. Micula v. Romania Romania Granted Written August 7, 2014; Noted in Decision on Annulment undertaking English ARB/05/20 26. Togo Electricité v. Togo Togo Granted No Condition January 31, 2011; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/06/7 French 27. Libananco v. Turkey Libananco Granted No Condition May 7, 2012; English ARB/06/8 28. Occidental v. Ecuador Ecuador Granted No Condition September 30, 2013; September 23, 2014; English English ARB/06/11 29. Lemire v. Ukraine Ukraine Granted Security February 14, 2012; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/06/18 English (excerpts) 30. RSM v. Central African Republic RSM Rejected N/A March 29, 2012; Noted in Decision on Annulment French (excerpts) ARB/07/2 31. Venezuela Holdings v. Venezuela Venezuela Granted Written September 17, 2015; undertaking English ARB/07/27 21 Stay of Condition for Case Applicant Decision on Stay and Source of Publication Enforcement Stay 32. SGS v. Paraguay Paraguay Rejected N/A March 22, 2013; English ARB/07/29 33. Caratube v. Kazakhstan Caratube Granted No Condition March 14, 2013; Noted in Decision on Annulment English ARB/08/12 34. Elsamex v. Honduras Honduras Granted Written January 7, 2014; Undertaking Spanish ARB/09/4 35. Iberdrola v. Guatemala Iberdrola Stay agreed by Security October 28, 2013; Noted in Decision on the Parties Annulment ARB/09/5 Spanish 36. Dogan v. Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Granted Security November 24, 2014; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/09/9 English 37. Kılıç v. Turkmenistan Kılıç Granted Security June 5, 2014; Noted in Decision on Annulment English ARB/10/1 38. Lahoud v. DRC Democratic Granted Security September 30, 2014 Republic of Congo French ARB/10/4 39. Tidewater v. Venezuela Venezuela Partially No Condition February 29, 2016; granted English Spanish ARB/10/5 40. Flughafen v. Venezuela Venezuela Granted Security March 11, 2016; Spanish ARB/10/19 41. Teco v. Guatemala Guatemala Granted No Condition February 10, 2015; Noted in Decision on Annulment ARB/10/23 English 42. Rizvi v. Indonesia Rizvi Information not Information not February 5, 2015 publicly publicly ARB/11/13 available available 43. OI European Group v. Venezuela Venezuela Rejected N/A April 4, 2016; English ARB/11/25 (v) Hearing and Post-Hearing Phase 59. The filing of written pleadings is followed by an oral hearing which most often lasts one to two days. The hearing is usually limited to the parties’ oral arguments and, in some cases, to examination of legal experts whose opinions were submitted by the parties in the annulment proceeding. Because an ad hoc Committee does not reexamine the facts of the dispute, factual witnesses do not usually have any role in the process.106 60. At the hearing or shortly thereafter, the ad hoc Committee invites the parties to file submissions on costs and sometimes also to file post-hearing briefs. The ad hoc Committee closes the proceeding once the presentation of the annulment case is concluded and the Committee has made progress in the deliberations. It must issue the decision on annulment within 120 days from the date of closure.107 61. Of the 25 decisions on annulment issued since January 2011, 22 have been issued within one year of the hearing. The average time from the hearing to issuance of these 22 decisions 106 But see supra, para. 51 & note 92. 107 See Arbitration Rules 38(1) & 46. 22 was 7 months. Over the same period, the average time for an annulment proceeding from the registration of the application for annulment until the issuance of the decision was 24 months.108 The overall average duration of all concluded annulment proceedings during the past 5 years is 22 months from the date of registration (20 months from the date of constitution of the ad hoc Committee). Average Duration of Annulment Proceedings (Fiscal Years 2010 – Present) 30 24 25 24 25 23 23 22 20 21* 20 21 19 20 17 17 Months 15 15 10 5 0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 to Apr. 15, Average Duration - Registration to Conclusion 2016 Average Duration - Constitution of ad hoc Committee to Conclusion * This average excludes one case in which the constitution of the ad hoc Committee was suspended for over 6 years pursuant to an agreement by the parties. D. The Decision on Annulment 62. The proceeding ends with the ad hoc Committee’s decision on annulment. The Committee may (i) reject all grounds for annulment, meaning that the award remains intact; (ii) uphold one or more grounds for annulment in respect of a part of the award, leading to a partial annulment; (iii) uphold one or more grounds for annulment in respect of the entire award, meaning that the whole of the award is annulled; or (iv) exercise its discretion not to annul notwithstanding that an error has been identified.109 The proceeding may also be discontinued before the Committee issues a final decision because the parties agree on a settlement, a party does not object to the other party’s request for discontinuance, due to nonpayment of the advances requested by ICSID to cover the Costs of Proceeding or because the parties fail to take any steps in the proceeding during six consecutive months.110 Several annulment proceedings have been discontinued due to an Applicant’s 108 This average excludes discontinued proceedings. 109 ICSID Convention Article 52(3), see infra, para. 74(4). 110 Arbitration Rules 43-45; Administrative and Financial Regulation 14(3)(d) & (e). 23 failure to pay the advances and the other party’s unwillingness to make the outstanding payment.111 Annulment Proceedings - Outcomes Annulment Proceedings Instituted 90 Annulment Proceedings Concluded 72 Annulment Proceedings Discontinued (Rules 43-45) 14 Annulment Proceedings Discontinued (Non- Payment) 6 Decisions Refusing Annulment 37 Decisions Annulling Award in Part 10 Decisions Annulling Award in Full 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 63. The ad hoc Committee’s decision on annulment is not an award and is not subject to any further annulment proceeding, although it is equated to an award for purposes of its binding force, recognition and enforcement.112 Likewise, the decision must contain the elements required in an award.113 Notably, the decision must include the reasons upon which it is based.114 As to the requirement to deal with every question, one ad hoc Committee has opined that once an award is annulled in full on any ground, it is unnecessary to examine whether other grounds may also lead to annulment.115 Similarly, some ad hoc Committees which partially annulled an award based on one ground did not see the need to examine alternative grounds for annulment of the same portion of the award that had been annulled.116 Other ad hoc Committees examined all grounds raised, even where one of these grounds warranted full annulment.117 111 See Annex 1. As noted in para. 52, the Applicant is solely responsible for the advance payments to ICSID in annulment proceedings. Under Administrative and Financial Regulation 14(3)(d) and (e), if an Applicant fails to make an advance, the Secretary-General informs both parties of the default and gives an opportunity to either of them to make the outstanding payment within 15 days. If neither party makes the payment, the proceeding may, after consultation with the Committee, be suspended and eventually discontinued after six months. 112 ICSID Convention Article 53(2). 113 Id. at Articles 48 & 52(4); Arbitration Rules 47 & 53. 114 ICSID Convention Articles 48(3) & 52(4); Arbitration Rules 47(1)(i) & 53. 115 See e.g., Sempra, para 78. 116 See e.g., MINE, para. 6.109; Vivendi I, paras. 115 & 116; Occidental, para. 302; TECO, paras. 150, 159 & 167. 117 See e.g., Amco I, para. 16; Klöckner I, para. 82. 24 64. Nothing in the ICSID Convention or rules expressly prohibits an ad hoc Committee from stating its opinion on any issue addressed by the Tribunal award. However, some decisions have stated that an ad hoc Committee should not pronounce upon aspects of the Tribunal award that are not essential to its decision.118 65. The decision on annulment must also contain the ad hoc Committee’s determination on the allocation of costs incurred by the parties in connection with the proceeding.119 The Committee has discretion to decide how and by whom these costs should be paid, including each party’s legal fees and expenses.120 While ad hoc Committees in the past usually divided the Costs of Proceeding121 equally between the parties and ruled that each party bear its own legal fees and expenses, in recent years, a majority of Committees have decided that the Applicant should bear all or a majority of the Costs of Proceeding when the application for annulment was unsuccessful. Some ad hoc Committees have also ruled that the losing party should bear the legal fees and expenses of the successful party, in most instances the defending party.122 Allocation of Costs of Proceeding/ Legal Fees and Expenses Costs Decisions Issued* 60 Costs of Proceeding divided equally; each Party bears own 24 Legal Fees & Expenses Applicant bears all or a majority of the Costs of Proceeding 33 Applicant bears all or some of other Party's Legal Fees & 12 Expenses Respondent on Annulment bears all or some of the other 3 Party's Costs of Proceeding Respondent on Annulment bears all or some of other Party's 1 Legal Fees & Expenses 0 20 40 60 80 *Including 7 Orders of Discontinuance which contained orders on costs and counting as two the separate decisions on cross-applications made in one decision on annulment. 118 See, e.g., Enron, para. 340; Azurix, para. 362; CDC, para. 70; Lucchetti, para. 112; AES, para. 15; Tza Yap Shum, para. 81; Duke Energy, para. 99; Dogan, paras. 261-263. 119 ICSID Convention Articles 52(4) & 61(2); Arbitration Rules 47(1)(j) & 53; Administrative and Financial Regulation 14(3)(e). 120 Id. 121 See supra, para. 52. 122 As noted in para. 63, a decision on the allocation of costs in a decision on annulment is enforceable in the same manner as an ICSID award. ICSID Convention Article 53(2). 25 Decisions on Allocation of Costs Who bears the Case Who bears the Legal Fees Applicant Outcome Costs of and Expenses Proceeding 1. Amco v. Indonesia I Indonesia Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own costs ARB/81/1 2. Amco v. Indonesia II Both Parties Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/81/1- Resubmission 3. Klöckner v. Cameroon I Klöckner Annulled in full Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/81/2 4. Klöckner v. Cameroon II Both Parties Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/81/2 – Resubmission 5. SPP v. Egypt Egypt Discontinued Settlement – No Settlement – No order on order on costs costs ARB/84/3 6. MINE v. Guinea Guinea Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/84/4 7. Vivendi v. Argentina I Vivendi Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English Spanish costs ARB/97/3 8. Vivendi v. Argentina II Argentina Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/97/3 – Resubmission English Spanish 9. Pey Casado v. Chile Chile Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English French costs ARB/98/2 10. Wena Hotels v. Egypt Egypt Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/98/4 English 11. Gruslin v. Malaysia Both Parties Discontinued No order on costs No order on costs (Lack of Payment) ARB/99/3 12. Mitchell v. DRC DRC Annulled in full Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/99/7 13. RFCC v. Morocco RFCC Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/00/6 14. Enron v. Argentina Argentina Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/01/3 15. MTD Equity v. Chile Chile Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/01/7 English 16. CMS Gas v. Argentina Argentina Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English Spanish costs ARB/01/8 17. Repsol v. Petroecuador Petroecuador Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/01/10 English Spanish 18. Azurix v. Argentina Argentina Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/01/12 English Spanish 19. LG&E v. Argentina Both Parties Discontinued No order on costs No order on costs English Spanish ARB/02/1 20. Soufraki v. UAE Soufraki Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/02/7 English 26 Who bears the Case Who bears the Legal Fees Applicant Outcome Costs of and Expenses Proceeding 21. Siemens v. Argentina Argentina Discontinued Settlement – Settlement – Each Party bears Divided equally its own costs ARB/02/8 22. CDC Group v. Seychelles Seychelles Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/02/14 English 23. Ahmonseto v. Egypt Ahmonseto Discontinued Applicant Each Party bears its own (Lack of Payment) costs ARB/02/15 24. Sempra v. Argentina Argentina Annulled in full Respondent on Each Party bears its own English Spanish Annulment costs ARB/02/16 25. Lucchetti v. Peru Lucchetti Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/4 English Spanish 26. MCI v. Ecuador MCI Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/6 English Spanish 27. Continental Casualty v. Argentina Both Parties Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/9 English Spanish 28. Joy Mining v. Egypt Joy Mining Discontinued Settlement – no Settlement – no order on English order on costs costs ARB/03/11 29. El Paso v. Argentina Argentina Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/15 English Spanish 30. EDF v. Argentina Argentina Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/23 English Spanish 31. Fraport v. Philippines Fraport Annulled in full Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/03/25 32. Duke Energy v. Peru Peru Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/03/28 English 33. Total v. Argentina Argentina Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/04/1 English Spanish 34. Transgabonais v. Gabon Gabon Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/04/5 35. Vieira v. Chile Vieira Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/04/7 Spanish 36. Daimler v. Argentina Daimler Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/05/1 English Spanish 37. MHS v. Malaysia MHS Annulled in full Respondent on Each Party bears its own English Annulment costs ARB/05/10 38. RSM v. Grenada RSM Discontinued Applicant Applicant (Lack of Payment) ARB/05/14 39. Siag v. Egypt Egypt Discontinued Applicant Each Party bears its own costs ARB/05/15 40. Rumeli v. Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/05/16 English 27 Who bears the Case Who bears the Legal Fees Applicant Outcome Costs of and Expenses Proceeding 41. Kardassopoulos / Fuchs v. Georgia Georgia Discontinued Settlement – no Settlement – no order on order on costs costs ARB/05/18; ARB/07/15 42. Helnan v. Egypt Helnan Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English costs ARB/05/19 43. Micula v. Romania Romania Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/05/20 English 44. Togo Electricité v. Togo Togo Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/06/7 French 45. Libananco v. Turkey Libananco Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/06/8 English (excerpts) 46. Occidental v. Ecuador Ecuador Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English Spanish costs ARB/06/11 47. Lemire v. Ukraine Ukraine Annulment Applicant Each party bears its own rejected costs ARB/06/18 English (excerpts) 48. Nations v. Panama Nations Discontinued Information not Information not publicly (Lack of Payment) publicly available available ARB/06/19 49. RSM v. Central African Republic RSM Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/07/2 French (excerpts) 50. Shum v. Peru Peru Annulment Divided with Each Party bears its own rejected Applicant to bear costs ARB/07/6 Spanish 80% of the costs of the proceedings and Respondent 20%. 51. Toto v. Lebanon Toto Discontinued Information not Information not publicly publicly available available ARB/07/12 52. Impregilo v. Argentina Argentina Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/07/17 English Spanish 53. AES Summit v. Hungary AES Summit Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/07/22 English 54. SGS v. Paraguay Paraguay Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/07/29 English 55. Astaldi v. Honduras Honduras Discontinued Settlement - no Settlement - no order on costs Spanish order on costs ARB/07/32 56. ATA v. Jordan Jordan Discontinued Respondent on Respondent on Annulment English Annulment ARB/08/2 57. Caratube v. Kazakhstan Caratube Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/08/12 English 58. Alapli v. Turkey Alapli Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/08/13 English 59. Malicorp v. Egypt Malicorp Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/08/18 English French 28 Who bears the Case Who bears the Legal Fees Applicant Outcome Costs of and Expenses Proceeding 60. Karmer v. Georgia Georgia Discontinued Information not Information not publicly publicly available available ARB/08/19 61. Elsamex v. Honduras Honduras Discontinued Settlement – no Settlement – no order on Spanish order on costs costs ARB/09/4 62. Iberdrola v. Guatemala Iberdrola Annulment Divided equally Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/09/5 Spanish 63. KT Asia v. Kazakhstan KT Asia Discontinued Information not Information not publicly (Lack of payment) publicly available available ARB/09/8 64. Dogan v. Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Annulment Applicant Applicant rejected ARB/09/9 English 65. Commerce Group v. El Salvador Commerce Discontinued Applicant Each Party bears its own Group (Lack of payment) costs ARB/09/17 English 66. Kilıç v. Turkmenistan Kilıç Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own Rejected costs ARB/10/1 English 67. Lahoud v. DRC DRC Annulment Applicant Applicant bears its own costs rejected and half the costs incurred by ARB/10/4 French Respondent on Annulment 68. Levy de Levi v. Peru Levy de Levi Discontinued Information not Information not publicly publicly available available ARB/10/17 69. TECO v. Guatemala Both Parties Annulled in part Divided equally Each Party bears its own English (TECO’s costs (TECO’s application); ARB/10/23 application); Applicant bears 60% of legal Applicant fees and expenses (Guatemala’s (Guatemala’s application) application) 70. Rizvi v. Indonesia Rizvi Discontinued Information not Information not publicly publicly available available ARB/11/13 71. Tulip v. Turkey Tulip Annulment Applicant Each Party bears its own rejected costs ARB/11/28 English 66. Similar to a Tribunal award, the ad hoc Committee’s decision on annulment may be accompanied by the individual opinion of a member of the Committee.123 In practice, only 5 Committee members have partially or fully dissented from the majority’s decision.124 67. Where an award has been partially or wholly annulled, the prevailing Applicant on annulment was roughly evenly divided as between claimants (40%) and respondents (60%) in the Tribunal proceeding. 123 ICSID Convention Articles 48(4) & 52(4); Arbitration Rules 47(3) & 53. 124 See Vivendi II; Soufraki; Lucchetti; MHS; Iberdrola. 29 Full and Partial Annulment - By Party 40% (6) 60% (9) Annulment in Favor of Applicant-National of Another State Annulment in Favor of Applicant-State 68. The rate of annulment is low, with 2.8 percent of registered cases (6.6 percent of all awards) ending in full or partial annulment.125 The ratio of annulments to awards fluctuates historically and has shown a downward trend over the decades. In the early years, during the period 1971 – 2000, the rate of annulment was 13 percent. During the period 2001– 2010, this ratio decreased to 8 percent. Since January 2011, the ratio has further decreased to 3 percent. Annulment Proceedings under the ICSID Convention - Outcomes 1971 - Present 120 101 100 96 80 60 40 23 18 20 13 14 9 8 4 3 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011- Number of Convention awards rendered Number of decisions rejecting the application for annulment Number of decisions annulling the award in part or in full Number of annulment proceedings discontinued 125 Amco I (partial); Amco II (partial); Klöckner I (full); MINE (partial); Vivendi I (partial); Víctor Pey Casado (partial); Mitchell (full); Enron (partial); CMS (partial); Sempra (full); Fraport (full); MHS (full); Helnan (partial); Occidental (partial); TECO (partial). 30 E. Resubmission Proceedings 69. The effect of annulment is that the award or a part thereof becomes a nullity, meaning that the binding force of the annulled portion of the award is terminated. However, the decision on annulment does not replace the award or substitute any of the reasoning in the award. A party is entitled to request resubmission of the dispute to a newly constituted Tribunal to obtain a new award concerning the same dispute following annulment of the original award.126 Either party may start this process by filing a request for resubmission of the dispute, identifying the original award and explaining in detail which aspects of the dispute are to be submitted to the new Tribunal.127 The new Tribunal is constituted by the same method as the original Tribunal128 and is not bound by the reasoning of the ad hoc Committee. It is, however, bound by the unannulled portions of the original award in cases of partial annulment.129 70. There have been 7 resubmission proceedings registered to date,130 3 of which led to awards that were subject to a second annulment proceeding.131 The applications for annulment in those second annulment proceedings were rejected by the ad hoc Committees with the exception of the Amco II case, where the ad hoc Committee annulled the Tribunal’s Decision on Supplemental Decisions and Rectification.132 V. Interpretation of the Annulment Mechanism, the Role of the ad hoc Committee, and the Individual Grounds for Annulment A. The General Standards Identified in the Drafting History and ICSID Cases 71. As illustrated by Section III, the drafting history of the ICSID Convention demonstrates that assuring the finality of ICSID arbitration awards was a fundamental goal for the ICSID system. As a result, annulment was designed purposefully to confer a limited scope of review which would safeguard against “violation of the fundamental principles of law governing the Tribunal’s proceedings.”133 The remedy has thus been characterized as one 126 ICSID Convention Article 52(6); Arbitration Rule 55(1). The new Tribunal could reach the same conclusion as the original Tribunal whose award was annulled. 127 Arbitration Rule 55(1). The Secretary-General has no authority to refuse registration of a resubmitted dispute. Arbitration Rule 55(2). 128 Arbitration Rule 55(2)(d). 129 Arbitration Rule 55(3). A partial annulment means that only those portions of the award that have been annulled may be resubmitted, whereas the remainder will be res judicata. 130 Amco II; Klöckner II; MINE; Vivendi II; Enron (pending); Sempra; Víctor Pey Casado (pending). 131 See Amco II; Klöckner II; Vivendi II. 132 Amco II. The annulment is regarded as a partial annulment of an award for purposes of the tables contained in this paper. 133 See comment to Section 13 of the Preliminary Draft, History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 218 & 219. 31 concerning “procedural errors in the decisional process” rather than an inquiry into the substance of the award.134 72. The drafting history of the ICSID Convention also demonstrates that annulment “is not a procedure by way of appeal requiring consideration of the merits of the case, but one that merely calls for an affirmative or negative ruling based upon one [of the grounds for annulment].”135 It does not provide a mechanism to appeal alleged misapplication of law or mistake in fact. The Legal Committee confirmed by a vote that even a “manifestly incorrect application of the law” is not a ground for annulment.136 73. The limited and exceptional nature of the annulment remedy expressed in the drafting history of the Convention has been repeatedly confirmed by ICSID Secretary-Generals in Reports to the Administrative Council of ICSID, papers and lectures.137 74. ICSID ad hoc Committees have also affirmed these principles in their decisions.138 These decisions have clearly established that: (1) the grounds listed in Article 52(1) are the only grounds on which an award may be annulled; (2) annulment is an exceptional and narrowly circumscribed remedy and the role of an ad hoc Committee is limited; (3) ad hoc Committees are not courts of appeal, annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision, and an ad hoc Committee cannot substitute the Tribunal’s determination on the merits for its own; (4) ad hoc Committees should exercise their discretion not to defeat the object and purpose of the remedy or erode the binding force and finality of awards; (5) Article 52 should be interpreted in accordance with its object and purpose, neither narrowly nor broadly; and (6) an ad hoc Committee’s authority to annul is circumscribed by the Article 52 grounds specified in the application for annulment, but an ad hoc Committee has discretion with respect to the extent of an annulment, i.e., either partial or full. The following section enumerates each of these commonly cited principles related to ICSID annulment, accompanied by excerpts of annulment decisions confirming the relevant principle. 134 Broches, supra note 6, at 298. 135 See comment to Section 13 of the Preliminary Draft, History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 218 & 219. 136 See supra para. 21. 137 See e.g., Report of Secretary-General Ibrahim F.I. Shihata to the Administrative Council at its Twentieth Annual Meeting 3 (October 2, 1986): “The history of the Convention makes it clear that the draftsmen intended to: (i) assure the finality of ICSID awards; (ii) distinguish carefully an annulment proceeding from an appeal; and (iii) construe narrowly the ground for annulment, so that this procedure remained exceptional;” Report of Secretary-General Ibrahim F.I. Shihata to the Administrative Council at its Twenty-Second Annual Meeting (September 27-29, 1988): “It may be expected that use of the annulment procedure would be a rare event because of the seriousness of the shortcomings against which it is meant to be a safeguard. It is also wrong to confuse the annulment proceeding with an appeals process which is not possible in respect of awards issued by ICSID’s tribunals;” Broches, supra note 6, at 354 & 355. 138 All decisions on annulment have been published, either by ICSID with the consent of the parties, by the parties themselves, or in summaries of the legal reasoning of the ad hoc Committee excerpted by ICSID. See Annex 1, which includes references to each decision on annulment and its publication source. Pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 48(4), the Centre has published the legal reasoning of the decisions on annulment in RFCC, Repsol, Transgabonais, Lemire, and RSM. 32 (1) The grounds listed in Article 52(1) are the only grounds on which an award may be annulled  “The remedy of annulment requested by either or b y both Parties under Article 52 of the CONVENTION is essentially limited by the grounds expressly enumerated in paragraph 1, on which an application for annulment may be made. This limitation is further confirmed by Article 53 (1) by the exclusion of review of the merits of the Awards.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Applications by Indonesia and Amco Respectively for Annulment and Partial Annulment, para. 1.17 (December 17, 1992).  “It seems quite clear that, in accordance with Article 52(1), the grounds on which an application is founded can only be the five grounds provided for in the Convention.” Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, para. 4.24 (May 17, 1990) [unofficial translation from French].  “Claimants and Respondent agree that an ad hoc Committee is not a court of appeal and that its competence extends only to annulment based on one or other of the grounds expressly set out in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, para. 62 (July 3, 2002).  “The power for review is limited to the grounds of annulment as defined in [Article 52 of the ICSID Convention].” Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on the Application by the Arab Republic of Egypt for Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated December 8, 2000, para. 18 (February 5, 2002).  “Annulment may be based only on a very limited number of fundamental grounds exhaustively listed in Article 52(1).” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 222 (January 18, 2006) [unofficial translation from French].  “Both parties recognize that an ad hoc committee is not a court of appeal and that its competence extends only to annulment based on one or other of the grounds expressly set out in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention.” CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 43 (September 25, 2007).  “The limitation of recourse to the annulment mechanism to the few grounds listed in Article 52(1) serves to reinforce the finality and stability of ICSID awards...” Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki, para. 127 (June 5, 2007).  “Annulment review is limited to a specific set of carefully defined grounds (listed exhaustively in Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention).” Sempra Energy International v. Argentine 33 Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award, para. 74 (June 29, 2010) (footnote omitted).  “The role of the Committee is confined to the grounds of annulment in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, and as noted above, even if the Tribunal erred in law, this would not be a ground for annulment.” Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 237 (July 30, 2010).  “The review conducted by an ad hoc Committee is limited to the grounds that were carefully contemplated and are exhaustively listed in Article 52(1) of the Convention.” Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira, para. 236 (December 10, 2010) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “The grounds for annulment are exhaustively listed in Article 52(1). Neither the ordinary meaning of the terms used by such article nor its context allows any possibility for additional grounds.” Togo Electricité and GDF-Suez Energie Services v. Republic of Togo, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/7, Decision on Annulment, para. 51 (September 6, 2011) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “Indeed, Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention limits annulment to five grounds, all of which concern the very integrity of the arbitral process.” Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13, Decision on Annulment, para. 32 (July 10, 2014).  “Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention sets out the five grounds on the basis of which a party may request annulment of an award. This is an exhaustive list.” Víctor Pey Casado and Foundation “Presidente Allende” v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of Chile, para. 89 (December 18, 2012).  “[T]he Committee will review the allegations raised by Argentina corresponding to those which are exhaustively listed in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention; the remaining allegations, which do not refer to the grounds for annulment, will be rejected without any analysis .” El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 137 (September 22, 2014) (emphasis omitted).  “The only recourse against the award available to the parties is limited to what is set out in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention... Thus the grounds for annulment should be interpreted as being exhaustive and restrictive.” Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment, para. 118 (January 24, 2014).  “As regards the general approach of Article 52, the annulment grounds referred therein are clearly exhaustive.” RSM Production Corporation v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Decision on Annulment of RSM Production Corporation, para. 76 (February 20, 2013) [unofficial translation from French]. 34  “The award may only be subject to annulment if an ad hoc committee finds that one or more of the five grounds for annulment established in Article 52(1) apply.” Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, para. 47 (November 2, 2015).  “Under the ICSID Convention, annulment provides relief for egregious violations of certain basic principles. Article 52(1) of the Convention circumscribes the reasons for annulment.” Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 39 (December 30, 2015).  “[I]t is clear from the text of Article 52 that an award may be annulled only on one or more of the five grounds set out in Article 52. An ad hoc committee is not entitled to range beyond those five grounds. Its function is not to consider whether or not it agrees with the reasoning or the conclusions of the tribunal but only to determine whether or not one or more of the five grounds has been made out.” EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Decision, para. 67 (February 5, 2016).  “It is not disputed that the grounds for annulment provided by Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention are exhaustive and are the only grounds under which an award may be annulled.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 163 (February 1, 2016).  “Annulment is a remedy of limited scope. Article 53 provides for the finality of awards by stating that they shall not be subject to ‘any appeal or any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention’. Article 52 sets out the limits of that exception by listing the grounds on which a party may seek annulment. The list is exhaustive. The decision to annul cannot be based on a ground other than the five listed in Article 52(1). It is now well settled that this exhaustive list of grounds safeguards the integrity and not the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.” Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9, Decision on Annulment, para. 28 (January 15, 2016).  “An annulment committee’s mandate is strictly circumscribed by the five grounds for annulment listed under the ICSID Convention and it may not, under the guise of applying them, reverse an award on the merits.” TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Decision on Annulment, para. 73 (April 5, 2016). (2) Annulment is an exceptional and narrowly circumscribed remedy and the role of an ad hoc Committee is limited  “Article 52(1) makes it clear that annulment is a limited remedy.” Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Decision on the Application by Guinea for Partial Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated January 6, 1988, para. 4.04 (December 22, 1989). 35  “Because of its focus on procedural legitimacy, annulment is ‘an extraordinary remedy for unusual and important cases.’” CDC Group plc v. Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of Seychelles, para. 34 (June 29, 2005) (footnote omitted).  “The sole purpose of Article 52 is to provide for an exceptional remedy in cases where there has been a manifest and substantial breach of a number of essential principles set out in this Article.” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 223 (January 18, 2006) [unofficial translation from French].  “The purpose of the grounds for annulment under Article 52 of the Convention is to allow a limited exception to the finality of ICSID awards, which is highlighted by Article 53.” Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, para. 81 (January 8, 2007) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “[T]he role of an ad hoc committee in the ICSID system is a limited one.” MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, para. 54 (March 21, 2007) (footnote omitted).  “At the outset, the Committee must recall that, in the ICSID system, annulment has a limited function.” CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 44 (September 25, 2007).  “It is not contested by the parties that the annulment review, although obviously important, is a limited exercise, and does not provide for an appeal of the initial award.” Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki, para. 20 (June 5, 2007).  “[T]he Committee is conscious that it exercises its jurisdiction under a narrow and limited mandate conferred by Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The scope of this mandate allows annulment as an option only when certain specific conditions exist.” CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 158 (September 25, 2007).  “One general purpose of Article 52, including its sub-paragraph (1)(b), must be that an annulment should not occur easily.” Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, para. 101 (September 5, 2007).  “[T]he role of an ad hoc committee is a limited one, restricted to assessing the legitimacy of the award and not its correctness.” M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Decision on Annulment, para. 24 (October 19, 2009). 36  “It is true that the annulment procedure is exceptional in its nature…the grounds for the annulment remedy and the mandate of the ad hoc committee are limited.” Compagnie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v. Gabonese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/5, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Gabonese Republic, para. 228 (May 11, 2010) [unofficial translation from French].  “[T]he Committee considers that annulment proceedings are confined to determining whether the integrity of the arbitration proceedings has been respected.” Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira, para. 236 (December 10, 2010)[unofficial translation from Spanish].  “It is not contested by the parties that the annulment review, although obviously important, is a limited exercise, and does not provide for an appeal of the initial award. In other words, it is not contested that ‘. . . an ad hoc committee does not have the jurisdiction to review the merits of the original award in any way. The annulment system is designed to safeguard the integrity, not the outcome, of ICSID arbitration proceedings.’” Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki, para. 20 (June 5, 2007) (footnote omitted).  “In the Committee’s view, and in light of the text of the Convention, annulment is a limited remedy with a strictly circumscribed role: to safeguard the fundamental fairness and integrity of the underlying proceeding.” Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13, Decision on Annulment, para. 32 (July 10, 2014).  “The annulment procedure is not a mechanism to correct alleged errors of fact or law that a tribunal may have committed, but a limited remedy meant to ensure the fundamental fairness of the arbitration proceeding.” Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13, Decision on Annulment, para. 232 (July 10, 2014).  “[I]t follows from the very nature of annulment as an exceptional measure that it should not be resorted to unless the tribunal’s act or its failure to act has had, or at least may have had, serious consequences for a party.” Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Annulment, para. 102 (May 22, 2013).  “Therefore, when an allegation is made that there was a manifest excess of powers for failure to apply the applicable law, it is not the role of an ad hoc committee to verify whether the interpretation of the law by the tribunal was correct, or whether it correctly ascertained the facts or whether it correctly appreciated the evidence. These are issues relevant to an appeal, but not for annulment proceedings in view of the limited grounds provided for under the ICSID Convention.” Daimler Financial Services A.G. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 189 (January 7, 2015).  “[T]he object and purpose of the ICSID annulment procedure is to control the integrity of the arbitral proceeding in all its aspects... [L]imiting the number of grounds for annulment also aims to reinforce the finality and the ‘stability’ of ICSID awards.” RSM Production Corporation v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Decision on Annulment 37 of RSM Production Corporation, paras. 73, 75 (February 20, 2013) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “In the context of the ICSID Convention, the object of the review is, however, restricted by Article 52(1)(e) which provides only a limited scope for review, as confirmed by a series of ad hoc committees’ decisions.” Mr. Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Annulment, para. 112 (February 12, 2015) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “Article 52 of the ICSID Convention follows the model of a limited review. It represents a control mechanism that ensures that a decision has remained within the framework of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and is the result of a process that was in accord with basic requirements of fair procedure. The main function of annulment is to provide a limited form of review of awards in order to safeguard the integrity of ICSID proceedings.” Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 41 (December 30, 2015).  “Annulment is possible on a very limited number of grounds. In the case of the ICSID Convention, these are listed exhaustively in Article 52(1).” Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 43 (December 30, 2015).  “As indicated before, the annulment proceeding is not an appeal and therefore is not a mechanism to correct alleged errors of fact or law that the tribunal may have committed. Annulment under the ICSID Convention is a limited remedy.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 179 (February 1, 2016) (footnotes omitted).  “[A]nnulment is an exceptional, narrowly circumscribed remedy, and the role of an ad hoc committee is limited.” Antoine Abou Lahoud and Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/4, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, para. 108 (March 29, 2016) [unofficial translation from French]. (3) Ad hoc Committees are not courts of appeal, annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision, and an ad hoc Committee cannot substitute the Tribunal’s determination on the merits for its own  “The law applied by the Tribunal will be examined by the ad hoc Committee, not for the purpose of scrutinizing whether the Tribunal committed errors in the interpretation of the requirements of applicable law or in the ascertainment or evaluation of the relevant facts to which such law has been applied. Such scrutiny is properly the task of a court of appeals, which the ad hoc Committee is not.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco I), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 23 (May 16, 1986).  “Annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision. An ad hoc Committee may not in fact review or reverse an ICSID award on the merits under the guise of annulment under Article 38 52.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Applications by Indonesia and Amco Respectively for Annulment and Partial Annulment, para. 1.17 (December 17, 1992).  “It is incumbent upon Ad Hoc Committees to resist the temptation to rectify incorrect decisions or to annul unjust awards.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Applications by Indonesia and Amco Respectively for Annulment and Partial Annulment, para. 1.18 (December 17, 1992).  “[I]t should be recalled that as a rule an application for annulment cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal against an award and permit criticism of the merits of the judgments rightly or wrongly formulated by the award. Nor can it be used by one party to complete or develop an argument which it could and should have made during the arbitral proceeding or help that party retrospectively to fill gaps in its arguments.” Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais (Klöckner I), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 83 (May 3, 1985) [unofficial translation from French].  “Another basic consideration which must be mentioned concerns the limited scope of the annulment procedure, which cannot in any way serve as an appellate procedure.” Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais (Klöckner II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, para. 5.07 (May 17, 1990) [unofficial translation from French].  “Annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision. Accordingly, an ad hoc Committee may not in fact reverse an award on the merits under the guise of applying Article 52 .” Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Decision on the Application by Guinea for Partial Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated January 6, 1988, para. 4.04 (December 22, 1989).  “It is agreed by all that Article 52 does not introduce an appeal facility but only a facility meant to uphold and strengthen the integrity of the ICSID process. In the Treaty, the possibility of annulment is in this connection based on specific and limited grounds.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi II), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award Rendered on 20 August 2007, para. 247(i) (August 10, 2010).  “As has been stated in earlier published decisions made on requests for annulment of ICSID awards, the remedy of Article 52 is in no sense an appeal.” Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on the Application by the Arab Republic of Egypt for Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated December 8, 2000, para. 18 (February 5, 2002) (footnote omitted).  “No one has the slightest doubt – all the ad hoc Committees have so stated, and all authors specializing in the ICSID arbitration system agree – that an annulment proceeding is different from an appeal procedure and that it does not entail the carrying out of a substantive review of 39 an award.” Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, para. 19 (November 1, 2006).  “Even the most evident error of fact in an award is not in itself a ground for annulment.” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 222 (January 18, 2006) [unofficial translation from French].  “In annulment proceedings under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an ad hoc Committee is thus not a court of appeal, and cannot consider the substance of the dispute, but can only determine whether the award should be annulled on one of the grounds in Article 52(1).” Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 63 (July 30, 2010).  “Under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an annulment proceeding is not an appeal, still less a retrial; it is a form of review on specified and limited grounds which take as their premise the record before the Tribunal.” MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, para. 31 (March 21, 2007).  “[T]he role of an ad hoc committee in the ICSID system is a limited one. It cannot substitute its determination on the merits for that of the tribunal. Nor can it direct a tribunal on a resubmission how it should resolve substantive issues in dispute. All it can do is annul the decision of the tribunal: it can extinguish a res judicata but on a question of merits it cannot create a new one.” MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, para. 54 (March 21, 2007) (footnote omitted).  “The Committee recalls, once more, that it has only a limited jurisdiction under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee cannot simply substitute its own view of the law and its own appreciation of the facts for those of the Tribunal.” CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 136 (September 25, 2007).  “The Parties are aware that the annulment proceedings are designed to grant reparation fo r damages only in cases of serious violations of certain fundamental principles. Such procedures should not be confused with the proceedings of an Appeals Tribunal and, therefore, should be adopted only in special situations.” Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, para. 86 (January 8, 2007) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “In annulment proceedings under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an ad hoc committee is thus not a court of appeal, and cannot consider the substance of the dispute, but can only determine whether the award should be annulled on one of the grounds in Article 52(1).” Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 41 (September 1, 2009) (footnotes omitted). 40  “An ad hoc committee is responsible for controlling the overall integrity of the arbitral process and may not, therefore, simply determine which party has the better argument. This means that an annulment, as already stated, is to be distinguished from an ordinary appeal, and that, even when a ground for annulment is justifiably found, an annulment need not be the necessary outcome in all circumstances.” Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki, para. 24 (June 5, 2007).  “Article 52(1) looks not to the merits of the underlying dispute as such, but rather is concerned with the fundamental integrity of the tribunal, whether basic procedural guarantees were largely observed, whether the Tribunal exceeded the bounds of the parties’ consent, and whether the Tribunal's reasoning is both coherent and displayed. To borrow Caron’s terminology, annulment is concerned with the ‘legitimacy’ of the process of decision” rather than with the ‘substantive correctness of decision.’ Because of its focus on procedural legitimacy, annulment is ‘an extraordinary remedy for unusual and important cases.’ That annulment is not the same thing as appeal is a principle acknowledged, although applied unevenly, in the various decisions of ad hoc Committees.” CDC Group plc v. Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of Seychelles, para. 34 (June 29, 2005) (footnotes omitted).  “Annulment is distinct from an appeal. An ad hoc committee cannot substitute its own judgment on the merits for the decision of the Tribunal.” Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award, para. 73 (June 29, 2010).  “[A] request for annulment is not an appeal, which means that there should not be a full review of the tribunal’s award.” Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, para. 101 (September 5, 2007).  “[I]t is no part of the Committee’s functions to review the decision itself which the Tribunal arrived at, still less to substitute its own views for those of the Tribunal, but merely to pass judgment on whether the manner in which the Tribunal carried out its functions met the requirements of the ICSID Convention.” Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, para. 97 (September 5, 2007).  “It is an overarching principle that ad hoc committees are not entitled to examine the substance of the award but are only allowed to look at the award insofar as the list of grounds contained in Article 52 of the Washington Convention requires... Consequently, the role of an ad hoc committee is a limited one, restricted to assessing the legitimacy of the award and not its correctness. The committee cannot for example substitute its determination on the merits for that of the tribunal...” M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Decision on Annulment, para. 24 (October 19, 2009) (footnote omitted). 41  “Although this Committee expressed earlier some reservations about the way the Tribunal proceeded in its interpretation exercise, it is not itself empowered to act as an appeal body and substitute its own interpretation of the BIT for the one adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal.” Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Decision on the Application for Annulment of Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, para. 112 (December 23, 2010).  “An ad hoc committee, which is not an appellate body, is not called upon to substitute its own analysis of law and fact to that of the arbitral tribunal.” Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/28, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 144 (March 1, 2011).  “It is very common for an ad hoc Committee considering an application for annulment to deem it necessary to delineate between appeal (which relates to the merits of the arbitral award) and annulment (a form of specific control over the arbitral process subject to the requirements of Article 52 of the ICSID Convention)… The Committee insists, however, on strongly emphasizing that annulment is certainly not a means by which a party to an arbitral proceeding may seek to invalidate the merits of the arbitral award that it does not like.” Compagnie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v. Gabonese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/5, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Gabonese Republic, para. 19 (May 11, 2010) [unofficial translation from French].  “An ad hoc committee may not replace the Tribunal’s decision on the merits of the dispute by its own decision.” Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira, para. 235 (December 10, 2010) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “An ad hoc committee is not a court of appeal and cannot therefore enter, within the bounds of its limited mission, into an analysis of the probative value of the evidence produced by the parties.” Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 96 (March 25, 2010).  “In respect to the legal framework of the ICSID annulment proceedings, both Parties agree that an annulment proceeding is not an appeal process and that Article 52 of the ICSID Convention should be construed in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 70 (March 25, 2010).  “It is no part of the function of an annulment committee to reconsider findings of fact made by an ICSID arbitral tribunal. Rather the issues for this Committee are circumscribed by the terms of Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention and relate to the Tribunal itself: its powers; its process; and the reasoning of its Award.” Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 20 (June 14, 2010). 42  “Article 52 excludes a review of the Award on the merits to the extent that article 53(1) excludes any appeal. As a result, an ad hoc Committee cannot consider new matters regarding the merits of a case in an annulment proceeding.” Togo Electricité and GDF-Suez Energie Services v. Republic of Togo, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/7, Decision on Annulment, para. 50 (September 6, 2011) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “An ICSID award is not subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in the ICSID Convention. In annulment proceedings under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an ad hoc committee is thus not a court of appeal, and cannot consider the substance of the dispute, but can only determine whether the award should be annulled on one of the grounds in Article 52(1).” Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on the Application for Partial Annulment of Continental Casualty Company and the Application for Partial Annulment of the Argentine Republic, para. 81 (September 16, 2011) (footnotes omitted).  “As unambiguously expressed in Article 53 of the Convention, an award is not subject to an appeal. Annulment must therefore be different from appeal. It is well settled in international investment arbitration that an ad hoc committee may not substitute its own judgment on the merits for that of a tribunal.” AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment, para. 15 (June 29, 2012).  “Article 52(1)(e) does not empower an ad hoc Committee to review the merits of a case. Indeed, such a review would amount to an appeal, which is an impermissible remedy pursuant to Article 53 of the ICSID Convention.” Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13, Decision on Annulment, para. 197 (July 10, 2014).  “If this Committee were to undertake a careful and detailed analysis of the respective submissions of the parties before the Tribunal… and annul the Award on the ground that its understanding of facts or interpretation of law or appreciation of evidence is different from that of the Tribunal, it will cross the line that separates annulment from appeal.” Daimler Financial Services A.G. v. Republic of Argentina ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 186 (January 7, 2015).  “The annulment proceeding is not an appeal and therefore, is not a mechanism to correct alleged errors of fact or law that a tribunal may have committed.” Daimler Financial Services A.G. v. Republic of Argentina ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 188 (January 7, 2015) (footnote omitted).  “It is clear that Chile is here seeking in effect to appeal the Tribunal’s decision and is asking the Committee to substitute its decision for that of the Tribunal. As is well established, this is not the remit of an Annulment Committee. An ad hoc committee is not an appeal body.” Víctor Pey Casado and Foundation “Presidente Allende” v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of Chile, para. 129 (December 18, 2012). 43  “If the tribunal’s legal interpretation is reasonable or tenable, even if the committee might have taken a different view on a debatable point of law, the award must stand – otherwise the annulment procedure would expand into an appeal mechanism, in contravention of the clear wording of the Convention.” Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/12, Decision on the Annulment Application of Caratube International Oil Company LLP, para. 144 (February 21, 2014) (footnote omitted).  “Article 52.1.e of the Convention is not a means by which a Committee may decide or influence the substance of the dispute. Indeed, this provision is no means of appeal, which is not disputed by the parties for that matter.” RSM Production Corporation v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Decision on Annulment of RSM Production Corporation, para. 92 (February 20, 2013) [unofficial translation from French].  “Most committees have understood that this recourse of annulment must be clearly distinguished from an appeal. The difference between appeal and annulment is relevant in two ways. First, as to the result of the review procedure: an appeal can modify the award under review, whereas annulment can only invalidate it (fully or partially) or assert its validity, without being able to modify its content. Second, as has been recognized (among others) by the Committees in Soufraki and Pey Casado in the annulment decision it is not pertinent to rule on the substantive correctness of the award, because the annulment regime was designed to protect the integrity and not the result of ICSID arbitration proceedings; therefore, annulment refers only to the legitimacy of the decision process and not to its merit.” Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/5, Decision on the Request for Annulment of the Award Submitted by Iberdrola Energía, S.A., para. 74 (January 13, 2015) (footnotes omitted) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “It is the Arbitral Tribunal which must interpret the law. The Committee reiterates that it is not its function to act as an appeals tribunal.” Mr. Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Annulment, para. 156 (February 12, 2015) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “In essence, there is a unanimous agreement that annulment is distinct from appeal. The ad hoc committees are not courts of appeal and their task is not to harmonize ICSID’s jurisprudence[.]” SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29, Decision on Annulment, para. 105 (May 19, 2014) (footnote omitted).  “Allowing annulment committees to overturn incorrect applications of the law was specifically rejected by the drafters of the ICSID Convention because some delegates feared that this would call into question the finality of awards. Incorrect application of the law is thus not a basis for annulment except in the most egregious cases[.]” Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Annulment, para. 97 (May 22, 2013) (footnote omitted).  “[A]n examination of the reasons presented by a tribunal cannot be transformed into a re- examination of the correctness of the factual and legal premises on which the award is based. Committees do not have the power to review the adequacy of the reasons set forth by the tribunal in its award. Rather, the role of the committee is limited to analyzing whether a reader 44 can understand how the tribunal arrived at its conclusion. Broadening the scope of Article 52(1)(e) to comprise decisions with inadequate reasons would transform the annulment proceeding into an appeal.” Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, para. 66 (November 2, 2015).  “Annulment is fundamentally different from appeal. The result of a successful application for annulment is the invalidation of the original decision. The result of a successful appeal is its modification. A decision-maker exercising the power to annul only has the choice between leaving the original decision intact or annulling it in whole or in part. An appeals body may substitute its own decision for the decision that it has found to be deficient. Under the ICSID Convention, an ad hoc committee only has the power to annul the award. The ad hoc committee may not amend or replace the award by its own decision on the merits. Article 53(1) of the Convention explicitly rules out any appeal.” Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 42 (December 30, 2015).  “ICSID ad hoc committees have adamantly stressed the distinction between annulment and appeal. They have stated consistently that their functions are limited and that they do not have the powers of a court of appeal. A decision to annul has to be based on one of the five reasons listed in Article 52(1). Ad hoc committees cannot review an award’s findings for errors of fact or law.” Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 44 (December 30, 2015) (footnotes omitted).  “[I]t is a well established principle that, as the ad hoc committee in MTD Equity and MTD Chile v. Republic of Chile put it – Under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an annulment proceeding is not an appeal, still less a retrial; it is a form of review on specified and limited grounds which take as their premise the record before the Tribunal.” EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Decision, para. 64 (February 5, 2016) (footnote omitted).  “Article 53 of the ICSID Convention provides for the fundamental features of an arbitration award and confirms the well-established doctrine of finality in arbitration and the binding effect of the awards on the parties. The said article confirms also that the only recourse against the award available to the parties is limited to what is set out in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention and that no appeal is allowed.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 164 (February 1, 2016) (footnote omitted).  “As indicated before, the annulment proceeding is not an appeal and therefore is not a mechanism to correct alleged errors of fact or law that the tribunal may have committed. Annulment under the ICSID Convention is a limited remedy.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 179 (February 1, 2016) (footnotes omitted).  “[I]t is not within the Committee’s remit to review the substantive correctness of the Award, either in fact or in law. However, the Committee must examine the legitimacy of the arbitration 45 proceedings resulting in the Award. This means that it is not the Committee’s function to sit in appeal on the Award of the Tribunal. It must not substitute its views for those of the Tribunal.” Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9, Decision on Annulment, para. 29 (January 15, 2016).  “It is not within an ad hoc committee’s remit to re-examine the facts of the case to determine whether a tribunal erred in appreciating or evaluating the available evidence. A tribunal’s discretion in such matters of appreciation and evaluation of evidence is recognized by the ICSID system. An ad hoc committee cannot sit in appeal on a tribunal’s assessment of the evidence. If the Committee were to proceed to a re-examination of the facts of the present case and an assessment of how the Tribunal evaluated the evidence before it, it would act as an appellate body. That is not a function envisaged for it by the ICSID Convention.” Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9, Decision on Annulment, para. 129 (January 15, 2016) (footnotes omitted).  “The Committee notes that ICSID ad hoc committees have repeatedly held that the annulment mechanism is an exceptional and narrowly circumscribed remedy, and that it is not a remedy against an incorrect decision. As a result, committees have stressed the distinction between annulment and appeal, and stated that they cannot review the correctness of an award’s findings on facts or law. The Committee agrees with CMS v. Argentina that a committee ‘has only limited jurisdiction under Article 52 of the Convention’ and ‘cannot simply substitute its own view of the law and its own appreciation of the facts for those of the Tribunal.’ The Committee will apply these general standards when considering each of the grounds for annulment pleaded in this case.” Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Annulment, para. 122 (February 26, 2016) (footnotes omitted).  “Unreasoned awards can be annulled, because parties should be able to ascertain to what extent a tribunal’s findings are based on a correct interpretation of the law and on a proper evaluation of the facts. However, as long as reasons have been stated, even if incorrect, unconvincing or non-exhaustive, the award cannot be annulled on this ground. Article 52(1)(e) does not permit any enquiry into the quality or persuasiveness of reasons.” Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Annulment, para. 135 (February 26, 2016) (footnotes omitted).  “[A]d hoc committees are not courts of appeal, and annulment is not a remedy against a decision deemed as incorrect. This principle has been repeatedly stated by ad hoc committees.” Antoine Abou Lahoud and Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/4, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, para. 111 (March 29, 2016) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “It is nevertheless necessary to distinguish between the non-application by the arbitral Tribunal of the normally applicable law that constitutes a ground for annulment, and the misapplication of the applicable law, which does not constitute an excess of power and is therefore not a ground for annulment.” Antoine Abou Lahoud and Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/4, Decision on the Application 46 for Annulment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, para. 119 (March 29, 2016) (footnotes omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “Within the carefully balanced system of remedies established by the ICSID Convention and the Arbitration Rules, annulment is concerned with ensuring the fundamental fairness and integrity of the underlying proceeding. As it has often been repeated, annulment is not an appeal and an annulment committee is not empowered to review the substantive correctness of the Award, either in fact or in law. An annulment committee may not, within the confines of an annulment proceeding, review the assessment of the factual record by a tribunal.” TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Decision on Annulment, para. 73 (April 5, 2016) (footnote omitted). (4) Ad hoc Committees should exercise their discretion not to defeat the object and purpose of the remedy or erode the binding force and finality of awards  “An ad hoc Committee retains a measure of discretion in ruling on applications for annulment. To be sure, its discretion is not unlimited and should not be exercised to the point of defeating the object and purpose of the remedy of annulment. It may, however, refuse to exercise its authority to annul an award where annulment is clearly not required to remedy procedural injustice and annulment would unjustifiably erode the binding force and finality of ICSID awards.” Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Decision on the Application by Guinea for Partial Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated January 6, 1988, para. 4.10 (December 22, 1989).  “The ad hoc Committee may refuse to exercise its authority to annul an Award if and when annulment is clearly not needed to remedy procedural injustice and annulment would unwarrantably erode the binding force and finality of ICSID Awards.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Applications by Indonesia and Amco Respectively for Annulment and Partial Annulment, para. 1.20 (December 17, 1992).  “[It] appears to be established that an ad hoc committee has a certain measure of discretion as to whether to annul an award, even if an annullable error is found... Among other things, it is necessary for an ad hoc committee to consider the significance of the error relative to the legal rights of the parties.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, para. 66 (July 3, 2002).  “Keeping the object and purpose of the Convention as well as these underlying pol icy considerations in mind, we note that the ad hoc Committees operating during the last two decades have considered that a Committee has discretion to determine not to annul an Award even where a ground for annulment under Article 52(1) is found to exist... We thus should consider the significance of the [alleged annullable] error relative to the legal rights of the parties.” CDC Group plc v. Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Republic of Seychelles, para. 37 (June 29, 2005) (footnotes omitted). 47  “[The Committee] should therefore refrain from making an annulment decision too hastily. It must do so only in case of manifest error, substantial breach or, more specifically, whenever the breach is such that, if it had not been committed, the Tribunal would have reached a different outcome than the one reached. To this extent, the ad hoc Committee retains a measure of discretion.” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 226 (January 18, 2006) (citations omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “An ad hoc Committee should not decide to annul an award unless it is convinced that there has been a substantial violation of a rule protected by Article 52.” Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, para. 19 (November 1, 2006).  “[E]ven in the case of annullable error, the ad hoc Committee still has a measure of discretion under Article 52(3) in ordering annulment or in refusing to do so.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi II), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award Rendered on 20 August 2007, para. 252 (August 10, 2010).  “An ad hoc committee will not annul an award if the Tribunal’s disposition is tenable, even if the committee considers that it is incorrect as a matter of law.” Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 55 (June 14, 2010) (footnote omitted).  “The fundamental goal of the ICSID system is to assure the finality of the ICSID arbitration award. In this respect, the Committee agrees with Claimant that the annulment proceeding concerns serious procedural irregularities in the decisional process rather than an appeal on the merits. The limited and exceptional nature of the annulment remedy provided by Article 52 of the ICSID Convention forbids an inquiry on the substance of the case, on the misapplication of the law or on mistakes in analyzing the facts.” Joseph C. Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Ukraine’s Application for Annulment of the Award, para. 233 (July 8, 2013) (footnotes omitted).  “Article 53 sets out the fundamental features of an arbitration award, reiterating the well- established doctrine of finality in arbitration and the binding effect of the awards on the parties... Given this framework this Committee concludes that in balancing these principles and interests, annulment is an exceptional recourse that should respect the finality of the award.” Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment, para. 118 (January 24, 2014).  “Article 52(3) of the ICSID Convention provides in part that ‘[t]he Committee shall have the authority to annul the award […].’ Under the ordinary meaning of this provision, an ad hoc committee has some discretion and is not under an obligation to annul even if it finds that there is a ground for annulment listed in Article 52(1). Decisions on applications for annulment confirm that, even if a ground listed in Article 52(1) exists, annulment will ensue only if the flaw has had a serious adverse impact on one of the parties.” Tulip Real Estate and 48 Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Annulment, para. 45 (December 30, 2015) (footnote omitted).  “The Committee considers that the [final sentence of Article 52(3) of the ICSID Convention] clearly indicate[s] that committees were intended to have a degree of discretion. To say that a committee ‘shall have the authority to annul the award’ is very different from saying that a committee ‘shall annul the award’. Moreover, the Committee notes that other ad hoc committees have proceeded on the basis that annulment was not mandatory and that they enjoyed a discretion whether or not to annul the award under consideration. The Committee concludes that, even if an Article 52(1) ground is made out, it nevertheless retains a discretion as to whether or not to annul the award. That discretion is by no means unlimited and must take account of all relevant circumstances, including the gravity of the circumstances which constitute the ground for annulment and whether or not they had – or could have had – a material effect upon the outcome of the case, as well as the importance of the finality of the award and the overall question of fairness to both Parties.” EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Decision, para. 73 (February 5, 2016) (footnote omitted).  “[I]t is also undisputed that an annulment committee should not review the merits. It is not the duty of an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention to revisit the merits of the case, or to comment on what it would have decided on the merits had it acted as an arbitral tribunal. Annulment is an exceptional recourse that should consider the finality of the award.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 165 (February 1, 2016).  “Thus, the grounds for annulment should be interpreted as being exhaustive, considering their object and purpose, as an exceptional remedy, against an award that is otherwise considered final and binding.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 166 (February 1, 2016). (5) Article 52 should be interpreted in accordance with its object and purpose, neither narrowly nor broadly  “[A]pplication of the paragraph demands neither a narrow interpretation, nor a broad interpretation, but an appropriate interpretation, taking into account the legitimate concern to surround the exercise of the remedy to the maximum extent possible with guarantees in order to achieve a harmonious balance between the various objectives of the Convention.” Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais (Klöckner I), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision of the ad hoc Committee, para. 3 (May 3, 1985) [unofficial translation from French].  “The fact that annulment is a limited, and in that sense extraordinary, remedy might suggest either that the terms of Article 52(1), i.e., the grounds for annulment, should be strictly construed or, on the contrary, that they should be given a liberal interpretation since they represent the only remedy against unjust awards. The Committee has no difficulty in rejecting either suggestion. In its view, Article 52(1) should be interpreted in accordance with its object and purpose, which excludes on the one hand, as already stated, extending its application to 49 the review of an award on the merits and, on the other, an unwarranted refusal to give full effect to it within the limited but important area for which it was intended.” Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Decision on the Application by Guinea for Partial Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated January 6, 1988, para. 4.05 (December 22, 1989).  “Article 52(1) should be interpreted in accordance with its object and purpose: this precludes its application to the review of an Award on the merits and in a converse case excludes an unwarranted refusal to give full effect to it within the limited but significant area for which it was intended.” Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Applications by Indonesia and Amco Respectively for Annulment and Partial Annulment, para. 1.17 (December 17, 1992).  “It also appears to be established that there is no presumption either in favour of or against annulment, a point acknowledged by Claimants as well as Respondent.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, para. 62 (July 3, 2002) (footnote omitted).  “As has been stated in earlier published decisions made on requests for annulment of ICSID awards, the remedy of Article 52 is in no sense an appeal. The power for review is limited to the grounds of annulment as defined in this provision. These grounds are to be interpreted neither narrowly nor extensively.” Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on the Application by the Arab Republic of Egypt for Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated December 8, 2000, para. 18 (February 5, 2002) (footnotes omitted).  “As for the interpretation of grounds for annulment there is compelling support for the view that neither a narrow nor a broad approach is to be applied [footnote omitted].” Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award, para. 75 (June 29, 2010).  “[T]he grounds for annulment set out in Article 52 must be examined in a neutral and reasonable manner, that is, neither narrowly nor extensively.” Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, para. 19 (November 1, 2006) (footnote omitted).  “Furthermore, there is no presumption either in favor of or against annulment.” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 220 (January 18, 2006) (citation omitted) [unofficial translation from French].  “Article 52 of the ICSID Convention must be read in accordance with the principles of treaty interpretation forming part of general international law, which principles insist on neither restrictive nor extensive interpretation, but rather on interpretation in accordance with the object and purpose of the treaty. Some commentators have suggested that in case of doubt, an annulment committee should decide in favor of the validity of the award. Such presumption, however, finds no basis in the text of Article 52 and has not been used by annulment 50 committees.” Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki, paras. 21-22 (June 5, 2007) (footnote omitted).  “As for the interpretation of grounds for annulment there is compelling support for the view that neither a narrow nor a broad approach is to be applied. Nor is there any preponderant inclination ‘in favorem validitatis’, i.e. a presumption in favour of the Award’s validity.” Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Application for Annulment of the Award, paras. 75-76 (June 29, 2010) (footnotes omitted).  “[T]he Award shall be reviewed in light of the annulment grounds invoked by Iberdrola according to their genuine meaning, i.e. pursuant to an interpretation that is neither restrictive nor extensive, but limited to the scope and object of annulment.” Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/5, Decision on the Request for Annulment of the Award Submitted by Iberdrola Energía, S.A., para. 77 (January 13, 2015) (footnote omitted) [unofficial translation from Spanish].  “ICSID ad hoc committees have affirmed in their decisions, and this Committee agrees, that (a) the grounds listed in Article 52(1) are the only grounds on which an award may be annulled; (b) annulment is an exceptional and narrowly circumscribed remedy and the role of an ad hoc committee is limited; (c) ad hoc committees are not courts of appeal, annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision, and an ad hoc Committee cannot substitute the tribunal’s determination on the merits for its own; (d) ad hoc committees should exercise their discretion not to defeat the object and purpose of the remedy or erode the binding force and finality of awards; (e) Article 52 should be interpreted in accordance with its object and purpose, neither narrowly nor broadly: and (f) an ad hoc committee’s authority to annul is circumscribed by the Article 52 grounds specified in the application for annulment, but an ad hoc committee has discretion with respect to the extent of an annulment, i.e., either partial or full.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 167 (February 1, 2016) (footnotes omitted). (6) An ad hoc Committee’s authority to annul an award is circumscribed by the Article 52 grounds specified in the application for annulment, but an ad hoc Committee has discretion with respect to the extent of an annulment, i.e., either full or partial  “[M]erely because the Parties agree on the total or partial annulment of the Award on the same ground does not mean that the Committee must follow their requests in whole or in part. The annulment procedure is above all a procedure for the protection of the law. It is not instituted merely in the interest of the Parties.” Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais (Klöckner II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, para. 9.15 (May 17, 1990) [unofficial translation from French].  “The Committee notes that an ad hoc Committee may annul an award (or any part thereof) only pursuant to a request by a party and only within the scope of that request, unless by necessary implication annulment entails the annulment of other portions.” Maritime 51 International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Decision on the Application by Guinea for Partial Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated January 6, 1988, para. 4.08 (December 22, 1989).  “[W]here a ground for annulment is established, it is for the ad hoc committee, and not the requesting party, to determine the extent of the annulment. In making this determination, the committee is not bound by the applicant’s characterisation of its request, whether in the original application or otherwise, as requiring either complete or partial annulment of the award.” Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, para. 69 (July 3, 2002).  “The ad hoc Committee derives its authority from the same source, the parties’ will, as the Arbitral Tribunal itself. Its authority is no more legitimate than that of the Arbitral Tribunal. It should therefore refrain from deciding to annul too hastily.” Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Consortium R.F.C.C., para. 226 (January 18, 2006) [unofficial translation from French].  “Once an ad hoc committee has concluded that there is one instance of manifest excess of powers (or any other ground for annulment), which warrants annulment of the Award in its entirety, this will be the end of the ad hoc committee’s examination. Since annulment of an award in its entirety necessarily leads to the loss of the res judicata effect of all matters adjudicated by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary to consider whether there are other grounds - whether in respect of the same matter or other matters - that may also lead to annulment. On the other hand, an ad hoc committee will need to proceed differently where it decides not to annul the Award or decides to annul the Award only in part. In those instances it will be necessary for the ad hoc committee to examine all of the grounds invoked by the applicant in support of its application.” Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Application for Annulment of the Award, paras. 78-79 (June 29, 2010).  “Awards can be annulled in their entirety ‘or any part thereof’ [Article 52 (3)]. Committees, however, are not empowered to amend or replace such awards, nor to review the merits of the dispute. Factual findings and weighing of evidence made by tribunals are, as a general rule, outside the remit of ad hoc committees.” Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, para. 47 (November 2, 2015) (footnote omitted).  “ICSID ad hoc committees have affirmed in their decisions, and this Committee agrees, that… an ad hoc committee’s authority to annul is circumscribed by the Article 52 grounds specified in the application for annulment, but an ad hoc committee has discretion with respect to the extent of an annulment, i.e., either partial or full.” Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Annulment, para. 167 (February 1, 2016) (footnotes omitted). 52 B. The Interpretation of Specific Grounds 75. The grounds for annulment in Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention are: (a) the improper constitution of the Tribunal; (b) manifest excess of powers by the Tribunal; (c) corruption on the part of a Tribunal member; (d) a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; and (e) failure to state reasons. Grounds (b), (d) and (e) are the most frequently relied upon grounds for annulment and they are usually invoked cumulatively in support of the application to annul an award.139 Grounds Invoked in Annulment Proceedings Number of Annulment Decisions Reviewed* 52 Art. 52(1)(a) - Improper 5 constitution of the Tribunal 0 Number of Proceedings in which Art. 52(1)(b) - Manifest excess of 51 Ground was Invoked powers 3 Art. 52(1)(c) - Corruption Number of Proceedings in which 0 Ground was Invoked by Both Parties Art. 52(1)(d) - Serious departure from a fundamental rule of 41 1 procedure Art. 52(1)(e) - Failure to state 50 reasons 3 *See Annex 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 76. The specific grounds for annulment were discussed in the drafting history of the ICSID Convention and have been extensively analyzed and interpreted in ICSID cases, in particular grounds (b), (d) and (e). The following is a brief summary of the meaning of these grounds as indicated in the drafting history and as interpreted by ad hoc Committees. The table at Annex 2 details the grounds invoked in annulment decisions, showing which were upheld and rejected.140 (i) Improper Constitution of the Tribunal 77. The drafting history of the ICSID Convention indicates that the ground of improper constitution of the Tribunal was intended to cover situations such as a departure from the 139 ICSID Convention Article 52(1) provides that a party may request annulment “on one or more” grounds. 140 See “Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings,” Annex 2. 53 parties’ agreement on the method of constituting the Tribunal or an arbitrator’s failure to meet the nationality or other requirements for becoming a member of the Tribunal.141 78. No provision of the ICSID Convention or rules explicitly addresses when a Tribunal might be considered to be improperly constituted. However, Chapter I of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, entitled “Establishment of the Tribunal,” provides detailed rules concerning constitution of a Tribunal, including nationality and other requirements for Tribunal members, the appointment process, and the arbitrator’s declaration of impartiality and independence.142 The parties may raise an objection concerning compliance with any of these provisions, which should be addressed by the Tribunal as soon as it has been constituted. In practice, Tribunals consistently ask the parties whether they have any objection to the constitution of the Tribunal or to any individual member during the Tribunal’s first session dealing with procedural matters.143 If a Tribunal decides that it has been properly constituted following an objection by a party, that party must await the Tribunal’s award before filing an application for annulment on this ground.144 79. Improper constitution of a Tribunal has been raised in only 5 annulment cases leading to decisions. Four rejected the allegation based on this ground.145 In a fifth case, the ad hoc Committee did not address the ground, as it had already decided to annul the award in full based on another ground.146 80. The 5 decisions indicate that annulment applications based on this ground are likely to succeed only in rare circumstances. One annulment decision held that the ad hoc Committee’s role is limited to considering whether the provisions concerning constitution of the Tribunal were respected in the original proceeding, and does not extend to matters such as review of the Tribunal’s decision on a request for disqualification of a Tribunal member under Article 58 of the Convention.147 Ad hoc Committees have also indicated that a party with knowledge of an alleged improper constitution of the Tribunal in the original proceeding who fails to raise such issue may be taken to have waived its right to raise this as a ground for annulment.148 (ii) Manifest Excess of Powers 81. The drafters of the ICSID Convention anticipated an excess of powers when a Tribunal went beyond the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement, decided points which had not 141 See supra para. 18. 142 See Arbitration Rules 1-12 (which implement the provisions of ICSID Convention Articles 14(1), 37-40 & 56-58). 143 See Arbitration Rule 13(1). The first session is to be held within 60 days after the Tribunal’s constitution or such other period as the parties may agree. 144 History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 851 & 852. 145 See Annex 2; Vivendi II; Azurix; Transgabonais; EDF. 146 Sempra. 147 Azurix, paras. 272-284. 148 Azurix, para. 291; Transgabonais, paras. 129 & 130. 54 been submitted to it, or failed to apply the law agreed to by the parties.149 The main powers of the Tribunal that appear to have been contemplated by this provision thus relate to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and to the applicable law. These two categories will be described separately below. 82. Article 52(1)(b) of the ICSID Convention provides that only instances of “manifest” excess of the Tribunal’s powers may lead to an annulment, indicating a dual requirement of an “excess” that is “manifest.”150 As a result, ad hoc Committees have identified two methodological approaches to determine whether there is an annullable error on this ground. The first is a two-step analysis determining whether there was an excess of powers and, if so, whether the excess was “manifest.”151 The second is a prima facie test, consisting of a summary examination to determine whether any of the alleged excesses of power could be viewed as “manifest.”152 83. The “manifest” nature of the excess of powers has been interpreted by most ad hoc Committees to mean an excess that is obvious, clear or self-evident,153 and which is discernable without the need for an elaborate analysis of the award.154 However, some ad hoc Committees have interpreted the meaning of “manifest” to require that the excess be serious or material to the outcome of the case.155 149 See supra paras. 14, 19-20. 150 See supra paras. 14, 19-21. 151 Sempra, para. 212; Fraport, para. 40; AES, para. 32; Lemire para. 240; Occidental, para. 57; EDF, para. 191; Total, para. 171; Micula, para. 123; TECO, para. 76. 152 Id. One ad hoc Committee has stated that “‘manifest’ does not prevent that in some cases an extensive argumentation and analysis may be required to prove that the misuse of power has in fact occurred.” Occidental, para. 267. 153 Vivendi II, para. 245 (“must be ‘evident’”); Repsol, para. 36 (“obvious by itself”); Azurix, para. 68 (“obvious”); Soufraki, para. 39 (“obviousness”) (citing Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (“‘clear,’ ‘plain,’ ‘obvious,’ ‘evident’….”)); CDC, para. 41 (citing Wena, para. 25 (“clear or ‘self-evident’”)); MCI, para. 49 (citing Wena, para. 25) (“self-evident”); Rumeli, para. 96 (“evident on the face of the Award”); Helnan, para. 55 (“obvious or clear”); Malicorp, para. 56 (“both obvious and serious”); Tza Yap Shum, para. 82 (“must be evident”); SGS, para. 122 (“textually obvious and substantively serious”); Libananco, para. 82 (“‘self-evident,’ ‘clear,’ ‘plain on its face’ or ‘certain’”); Occidental, para. 57 (“perceived without difficulty”); Tulip, para. 56 (“obvious, clear or easily recognizable”); Micula, para. 123 (“evident, obvious, clear or easily recognizable”); Total, para. 173; Dogan, para. 103; Lahoud, para. 128; TECO, paras. 77, 181. 154 See Wena, para. 25 (“The excess of power must be self-evident rather than the product of elaborate interpretations one way or the other.”); Mitchell, para. 20 (manifest if found “with certainty and immediacy, without it being necessary to engage in elaborate analyses of the award”); Enron, para. 69 (quoting MTD, para. 47 (“not arguable”)); Repsol, para. 36 (quoting Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary 933 (Cambridge University Press 2001) (“discerned with little effort and without deeper analysis”)); Azurix, paras. 48 & 68; CDC, para. 41 (“Any excess apparent in a Tribunal’s conduct, if susceptible ‘one way or the other’, is not manifest”) ; Sempra, para. 213 (“quite evident without the need to engage in an elaborate analysis”); MCI, para. 49 (“the manifest excess requirement in Article 52(1)(b) suggests a somewhat higher degree of proof than a searching analysis of the findings of the Tribunal”) ; El Paso, para. 142 (“obvious, evident, clear, self-evident and extremely serious”). 155 Klöckner I, para. 52(e) (“the [Tribunal’s] answers seem tenable and not arbitrary”); Vivendi I, para. 86 (“clearly capable of making a difference to the result”); Soufraki, para. 40 (“at once be textually obvious and substantially serious”); Fraport, para. 44 (“demonstrable and substantial and not doubtful”); MHS, para. 80; AES, para. 31; 55 84. Manifest excess of powers has been invoked in every case but one leading to a decision on annulment.156 There have been 9 instances of partial or full annulment on this basis.157 (a) Manifest Excess of Powers Relating to Jurisdiction 85. A Tribunal is expected to observe the parties’ arbitration agreement. If a Tribunal goes beyond the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement, it in effect surpasses the mandate granted to it by the parties. In addition, the ICSID Convention prescribes certain mandatory requirements that must be fulfilled for a Tribunal to have jurisdiction.158 These jurisdictional requirements require: (i) ‘a legal dispute;’ (ii) ‘arising directly out of an investment;’ (iii) ‘between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State);’ (iv) ‘and a national of another Contracting State;’ (v) ‘which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre.’159 The parties cannot agree to derogate from these criteria. In fact, the Tribunal must decline jurisdiction where a mandatory requirement is not met, even if neither party has raised any objection to jurisdiction.160 86. Objections to jurisdiction are often raised in international investment cases and the jurisdictional requirements have been extensively discussed and analyzed in such cases. 87. Ad hoc Committees have held that there may be an excess of powers if a Tribunal incorrectly concludes that it has jurisdiction when in fact jurisdiction is lacking,161 or when the Tribunal exceeds the scope of its jurisdiction.162 It has been recognized, in the inverse case, that a Tribunal’s rejection of jurisdiction when jurisdiction exists also amounts to an excess of powers.163 Impregilo, para. 128 (“obvious, self-evident, clear, flagrant and substantially serious”); Libananco, para. 102; Total, para. 308. 156 The exception is RSM v. Central African Republic. 157 Amco I (partial); Klöckner I (full); Vivendi I (partial); Mitchell (full); Enron (partial); Sempra (full); MHS (full); Helnan (partial); and Occidental (partial). 158 ICSID Convention Article 25(1). 159 Id. 160 ICSID Convention Article 41(1). 161 Vivendi I, para. 86; Mitchell, paras. 47, 48 & 67; CMS, para. 47 (quoting Klöckner I, para. 4); Azurix, para. 45 (quoting Klöckner I, para. 4); Lucchetti, para. 99; MCI, para. 56 (quoting Lucchetti, para. 99); Occidental, paras. 49- 51; Tulip, para. 55; EDF, para. 191; Total, para. 242; Dogan, para. 105; Micula, para. 125; Lahoud, para. 118; TECO, para. 77. 162 Klöckner I, para. 4; Soufraki, para. 42; Occidental, paras. 49-51; Tulip, para. 55; Total, para. 242; Dogan, para. 105; Micula, para. 125; Lahoud, para. 118; TECO, para. 77. 163 Vivendi I, para. 86; Soufraki, para. 43 (quoting Vivendi I, para. 86); Lucchetti, para. 99; Fraport, para. 36 (citing Vivendi I, para. 86); MHS, para. 80; Helnan, para. 41 (citing Soufraki, para. 44; Vivendi I, para. 86); Caratube, para. 75 (quoting Vivendi I, para. 115; MHS, para. 80); Tulip, para. 55; Dogan, para. 105; Micula, para. 126. 56 88. At the same time, ad hoc Committees have acknowledged the principle specifically provided by the Convention that the Tribunal is the judge of its own competence. 164 This means that the Tribunal has the power to decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear the parties’ dispute based on the parties’ arbitration agreement and the jurisdictional requirements in the ICSID Convention. In light of this principle, the drafting history suggests —and most ad hoc Committees have reasoned— that in order to annul an award based on a Tribunal’s determination of the scope of its own jurisdiction, the excess of powers must be “manifest.”165 However, one ad hoc Committee found that an excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction is a manifest excess of powers when it is capable of affecting the outcome of the case.166 89. The issue of lack or excess of jurisdiction has been ruled on in 30 annulment decisions and has led to one full and one partial annulment.167 In addition, the non-exercise of an existing jurisdiction has been decided in 13 decisions and has resulted in one full and 2 partial annulments.168 (b) Manifest Excess of Powers Relating to the Applicable Law 90. The drafting history of the ICSID Convention shows that a Tribunal’s failure to apply the proper law could constitute a manifest excess of powers, but that erroneous application of the law could not amount to an annullable error, even if it is manifest.169 As stated above, there is no basis for an annulment due to an incorrect decision by a Tribunal, a principle that has been expressly recognized by many ad hoc Committees.170 91. The ICSID Convention provides as follows concerning the law to be applied by a Tribunal: The Tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the Tribunal shall apply the law of the Contracting State party to the dispute (including 164 Enron, para. 69 (citing Azurix, para. 67); Azurix, para. 67; Soufraki, para. 50; SGS v. Paraguay, para. 114; see also History, supra note 5, at Vol. I, 186-190, Vol. II, 206, 291-92, 406 & 511; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, para. 38 (March 18, 1965). 165 See supra para. 19; MTD, para. 54; Azurix, paras. 64-66 (quoting Lucchetti, paras. 101 & 102); Soufraki, paras. 118 & 119 (“the requirement that an excess of power must be ‘manifest’ applies equally if the question is one of jurisdiction”); Lucchetti, para. 101; Rumeli, para. 96; SGS v. Paraguay, para. 114; Kılıç, para. 56; Total, para. 176 ; TECO, para. 219. 166 Vivendi I, paras. 72 & 86. 167 See Mitchell, para. 67. The award in Mitchell was annulled in full on 2 grounds: manifest excess of powers and failure to state the reasons. See Occidental, para. 590. The award in Occidental was partially annulled on this ground. 168 Vivendi I (partial); Helnan (partial); MHS (full). 169 See supra paras. 15 & 21. 170 See supra para. 74. 57 its rules on the conflict of laws) and such rules of international law as may be applicable.171 92. Where the parties’ agree on applicable law, a disregard of this law would likely be equivalent to a derogation from the mandate conferred on the Tribunal by the parties. 93. Ad hoc Committees agree that a Tribunal’s complete failure to apply the proper law or acting ex aequo et bono without agreement of the parties to do so as required by the ICSID Convention could constitute a manifest excess of powers.172 However, ad hoc Committees have taken different approaches to whether an error in the application of the proper law may effectively amount to non-application of the proper law. Some ad hoc Committees have concluded that gross or egregious misapplication or misinterpretation of the law may lead to annulment,173 while others have found that such an approach comes too close to an appeal.174 Similarly, ad hoc Committees have discussed whether application of a law different from that purportedly applied by the Tribunal could be considered a manifest excess of powers.175 These discussions have led ad hoc Committees to observe that there is sometimes a fine line between failure to apply the proper law and erroneous application of the law.176 In this connection, one issue discussed by some ad hoc Committees concerns which rules of law apply when consent to arbitration is based on an arbitration clause in a bilateral investment treaty.177 94. The failure to apply the proper law has been invoked in 44 out of 52 annulment decisions. It has led to two partial and two full annulments.178 (iii) Corruption on the Part of a Tribunal Member 95. The drafters of the ICSID Convention decided not to replace the word “corruption” with “misconduct,” “lack of integrity” or “a defect in moral character.”179 They also decided not 171 ICSID Convention Article 42(1). 172 Amco I, paras. 23 & 28; Amco II, para. 7.28; Klöckner I, para. 79; MINE, para. 5.03; Enron, para. 218 (quoting Azurix, para. 136 (footnotes omitted)); MTD, para. 44; CMS, para. 49, Soufraki, para. 85 (quoting Amco I, para. 23); Daimler, para. 153; Tulip, para. 58; EDF, para. 191; Total, para. 195; Dogan, para. 98; Micula, para. 127; Lahoud, para. 118; TECO, paras. 283, 311. 173 Soufraki, para. 86; Sempra, para. 164; MCI, paras. 43 & 51 (quoting Soufraki, para. 86); MHS, para. 74; AES, paras. 33 & 34 (quoting Soufraki, para. 86); Caratube, para. 81 (quoting Soufraki, para. 86); Dogan, para. 105; Micula, para. 130; Lahoud, para. 121. 174 MINE, paras. 5.03 & 5.04; MTD, para. 47; CMS, paras. 50-51 (quoting MINE, paras. 5.03 & 5.04; MTD, para. 47); Sempra, para. 206; Impregilo, para. 131; El Paso, para.144; Occidental, para. 56. 175 MTD, para. 47; CMS, para. 51 (quoting MTD, para. 47); Azurix, para. 136, fn 118 (citing MTD, para. 47); Sempra, para. 163, fn 44 (citing MTD, para. 47); Occidental, para. 55. 176 Klöckner I, para. 60; Enron, paras. 68 & 220; Azurix, para. 47; Iberdrola, para. 98; Dogan, paras. 106-108. 177 Enron; CMS; Sempra. 178 Amco I (partial); Klöckner I (full); Enron (partial); Sempra (full). 179 See supra para. 22. 58 to limit this ground to cases of corruption evidenced by a court judgment or a showing of “reasonable proof that corruption might exist.”180 96. When an arbitrator agrees to serve as a member of a Tribunal, the arbitrator is required to sign a declaration that he or she “shall not accept any instruction or compensation with regard to the proceeding from any source except as provided in the ICSID Convention.”181 An arbitrator’s conduct in breach of that declaration can thus lead to annulment of an award. If a party has knowledge of such conduct during the proceeding before the Tribunal, it should file a request for disqualification based on Article 57 of the ICSID Convention. 97. This ground has not been dealt with in any decision on annulment to date. (iv) Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Procedure 98. It appears from the drafting history of the ICSID Convention that the ground of a “serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure” has a wide connotation including principles of natural justice, but that it excludes the Tribunal’s failure to observe ordinary arbitration rules. The phrase “fundamental rules of procedure” was explained by the drafters as a reference to principles.182 One such fundamental principle mentioned during the negotiations was the parties’ right to be heard.183 The drafting history thus indicates that this ground is concerned with the integrity and fairness of the arbitral process. 99. Based on the words “serious” and “fundamental” in this ground, ad hoc Committees have adopted a dual analysis: the departure from a rule of procedure must be serious and the rule must be fundamental.184 Ad hoc Committees have thus consistently held that not every departure from a rule of procedure justifies annulment.185 Examples of fundamental rules of procedure identified by ad hoc Committees concern: (i) the equal treatment of the parties; 186 (ii) the right to be heard; 187 (iii) an independent and impartial Tribunal;188 (iv) 180 Id. 181 See Arbitration Rule 6(2), which provides the standard form of the declaration. 182 See supra para. 23. 183 See supra para. 16. 184 Amco II, para. 9.07; MINE, para. 4.06; Wena, para. 56; CDC, para. 48; Fraport, para. 180; Malicorp, para. 28; Libananco, para. 84. See also Iberdrola, para. 103 (recognizing these two cumulative requirements and noting that “although the qualifier of fundamental is not found in the Spanish version [of the ICSID Convention], it should equally be understood as incorporated”) [unofficial translation from Spanish]; Occidental, para. 62; Tulip, para. 70; EDF, paras. 199-200; Micula, paras. 131-134, 283; TECO, para. 81. 185 MINE, para. 4.06; CDC, para. 48; Fraport, para. 186; Tulip, para. 71; Total, para. 312. 186 Amco I, paras. 87 & 88; Malicorp para. 36; Iberdrola, para. 105; Tulip, paras. 72, 84, 145; Total, paras. 309, 314. 187 Amco II, paras. 9.05-9.10; Klöckner I, paras. 89-92; Wena, para. 57; CDC, para. 49; Lucchetti, para. 71; Fraport, para. 197; Víctor Pey Casado, paras. 261-71; Malicorp, paras. 29, 36; Iberdrola, para. 105; Occidental, para. 60; Tulip, paras. 80, 145; Total, paras. 309, 314; TECO, para. 184. 188 Klöckner I, para. 95; Wena, para. 57; CDC, paras. 51-55; EDF, paras. 123-125; Total, paras. 309, 314. 59 the treatment of evidence and burden of proof;189 and (v) deliberations among members of the Tribunal.190 100. The task of determining whether an alleged fundamental rule of procedure has been seriously breached is usually very fact specific, involving an examination of the conduct of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Some ad hoc Committees have required that the departure have a material impact on the outcome of the award for the annulment to succeed.191 101. The ground of serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure has been pursued in 41 proceedings which led to annulment decisions. It resulted in the annulment in full of one award, the annulment in part of two further awards, and in the annulment of one decision on supplemental decisions and rectification.192 (v) Failure to State the Reasons on which the Award is Based 102. During the drafting of the ICSID Convention, the ground of “failure to state the reasons on which the award is based” was originally included in the ground of a “serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure.”193 It subsequently became a stand-alone ground. In addition, a proposed qualifier enabling parties to waive the requirement that reasons be stated was eliminated during the negotiation of the Convention.194 This elimination of the proposed waiver related to the removal of the same discretion in another provision in the Convention, which now reads: “[t]he award shall deal with every question submitted to the Tribunal, and shall state the reasons upon which it is based.”195 There is thus a clear link between the provision in the Convention requiring the Tribunal to state the reasons for the award, and the ground providing for annulment when there has been a failure to provide the reasons on which the award is based. The drafting history of the Convention concerning annulment based on a failure to state reasons does not provide further guidance as to when such a failure has occurred, nor does the Convention specify the manner in which a Tribunal’s reasons should be stated. 103. While a Tribunal must deal with every question submitted to it, the drafting history indicates that a failure to do so should not result in annulment.196 Instead, the ICSID Convention provides another remedy where a Tribunal fails to address a question: the 189 Amco I, paras. 90 & 91; Klöckner II, para. 6.80; Wena, paras. 59-61; Iberdrola, para. 105; Total, paras. 309, 314. 190 Klöckner I, para. 84; CDC, para. 58; Daimler, paras. 297-303; Iberdrola, para. 105; Total, paras. 309, 314. 191 Wena, para. 58; Repsol, para. 81; CDC, para. 49; Fraport, para. 246; Impregilo, para. 164; El Paso, para. 269; Iberdrola, para. 104; Dogan, para. 208; Micula, para. 134; TECO, paras. 82-85. See also the analysis of the Annulment Committee in Kılıç. 192 Fraport (partial); Víctor Pey Casado (full); Amco II (supplemental decision and rectification); TECO (partial). 193 See supra para. 8. 194 See supra para. 24. 195 Id.; ICSID Convention Article 48(3). 196 History, supra note 5, at Vol. II, 849. 60 dissatisfied party may request that the same Tribunal issue a supplementary decision concerning the question not addressed.197 In addition, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the meaning or scope of the award, either party may request interpretation of the award by the original Tribunal.198 Therefore, certain issues relating to the reasoning or lack of reasoning in an award can be heard by the Tribunal that rendered the award.199 104. At the same time, if a Tribunal’s failure to address a particular question submitted to it might have affected the Tribunal’s ultimate decision, this could, in the view of some ad hoc Committees, amount to a failure to state reasons and could warrant annulment.200 Ad hoc Committees have also noted that such failure could amount to a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure.201 A recent Decision on Annulment found that the failure to address certain evidence relevant to the determination of damages amounted to a failure to state the reasons.202 105. Ad hoc Committees have explained that the requirement to state reasons is intended to ensure that parties can understand the reasoning of the Tribunal, meaning the reader can understand the facts and law applied by the Tribunal in coming to its conclusion.203 The correctness of the reasoning or whether it is convincing is not relevant.204 197 ICSID Convention Article 49(2). The request must be made within 45 days of the dispatch of the award. The supplementary decision becomes part of the award and is thus subject to the remedy of annulment. 198 Id. at Article 50(1). There is no time bar for a request to interpret an award under the ICSID Convention. 199 Wena, para. 100; Tulip, para. 113. 200 Amco I, para. 32; Klöckner I; para. 115; MINE, para. 5.13; Soufraki, para. 126; Duke Energy, para. 228; Lemire, para. 279; EDF, paras. 197-198. In Alapli, the Committee held that “it is for the Tribunal to determine the questions which are material to resolve the dispute between the parties and put these to vote.” Alapli, para. 129. 201 Amco I, para. 32; Klöckner I; para. 115. 202 TECO, paras. 123-139. The ad hoc Committee stated: “While the Committee accepts that a tribunal cannot be required to address within its award each and every piece of evidence in the record, that cannot be construed to mean that a tribunal can simply gloss over evidence upon which the Parties have placed significant emphasis, without any analysis and without explaining why it found that evidence insufficient, unpersuasive or otherwise unsatisfactory.” Id., para. 131. In view of the partial annulment on this ground, the ad hoc Committee did not deal with a similar argument under Article 52(1)(d) of the ICSID Convention. 203 MINE, para. 5.09 (“the requirement to state reasons is satisfied as long as the award enables one to follow how the tribunal proceeded from Point A. to Point B. and eventually to its conclusion, even if it made an error of fact or of law”); Vivendi I, para. 64; Wena, para. 81; Transgabonais, para. 88; El Paso, para. 220; Kılıç, para. 64; Iberdrola, para. 124; Lemire, para. 277; Libananco, para. 192; Occidental, para. 66; Tulip, paras. 98, 104; Total, para. 267; Dogan, paras. 261-263; Micula, paras. 136, 198; Lahoud, para. 131; TECO, paras. 87, 124. 204 Klöckner I, para. 129; MINE, paras. 5.08 & 5.09; Vivendi I, para. 64; Wena, para. 79; CDC, paras. 70 & 75; MCI, para. 82; Fraport, para. 277; Vieira, para. 355; Caratube, para. 185; Impregilo, para. 180; SGS, para. 121; Iberdrola, paras. 76-77; Lemire, para. 278; Occidental, para. 66; Tulip, paras. 99, 104; EDF, para. 328; Total, para. 271; Micula, para. 135; TECO, para. 124. 61 106. Some ad hoc Committees have suggested that “insufficient” and “inadequate” reasons could result in annulment.205 However, the extent of insufficiency and inadequacy required to justify annulment on this basis has been debated.206 Other ad hoc Committees have suggested that they have discretion to further explain, clarify, or infer the reasoning of the Tribunal rather than annul the award.207 107. Finally, a majority of ad hoc Committees have concluded that “frivolous” and “contradictory” reasons are equivalent to no reasons and could justify an annulment.208 108. The ground of failure to state the reasons on which the award is based has been invoked by parties in 50 proceedings leading to decisions. The ground was upheld in 8 cases which resulted in 2 full and 6 partial annulments.209 VI. Conclusion 109. It is clear that annulment is a limited and exceptional recourse, available only on the basis of the grounds enumerated in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. It safeguards against “violation of the fundamental principles of law governing the Tribunal’s proceedings.”210 110. While there is agreement on the general standards for annulment, commentators sometimes disagree on whether a specific case has been decided correctly or incorrectly. 211 The complexity of the task assigned to ad hoc Committees was summarized by Broches as follows: 205 Mitchell, para. 21 (“a failure to state reasons exists whenever reasons are... so inadequate that the coherence of the reasoning is seriously affected”); Soufraki, paras. 122-26 (“insufficient or inadequate reasons, which are insufficient to bring about the solution or inadequate to explain the result arrived at by the Tribunal”) ; TECO, paras. 248-250. 206 Compare Amco I, para. 43 (“sufficiently pertinent reasons”), and Klöckner I, para. 120 (“sufficiently relevant”), with Amco II, para. 7.55 (“no justification for adding a further requirement that the reasons stated be ‘sufficiently pertinent’”), and MINE, para. 5.08 (“[t]he adequacy of the reasoning is not an appropriate standard of review”) ; Iberdrola, para. 94 (“this Committee considers that the annulment mechanism does not allow it to review the adequacy of the reasoning of the Award”) [unofficial translation from Spanish]; Occidental, para. 64; TECO, paras. 249-250. 207 Vivendi II, para. 248; Wena, para. 83; Soufraki, para. 24; CMS, para. 127; Rumeli, para. 83 (with the caveat that if non-stated reasons “do not necessarily follow or flow from the award’s reasoning, an ad hoc committee should not construct reasons in order to justify the decision of the tribunal” ). 208 Amco I, para. 97; Klöckner I, para. 116; MINE, paras. 5.09 & 6.107; CDC, para. 70; MCI, para. 84; Vieira, para. 357; Caratube, paras. 185-86 & 245; Tza Yap Shum, para. 101; El Paso, para. 221 (“contradictory to a point to neutralize each other”); Malicorp, para. 45 (“an award must be upheld unless the logic is so contradictory as to be ‘as useful as no reasons at all’”); RSM, para. 86 (noting that the contradiction must be substantial); Occidental, para. 65; Tulip, paras. 109-112; Total, para. 268; Lahoud, paras. 133-135; TECO, paras. 90, 275, 278. 209 Amco I (partial), Klöckner I (full), MINE (partial), Mitchell (full); CMS (partial), Enron (partial), Víctor Pey Casado (partial); TECO (partial). 210 See supra para. 71. 211 A number of authors have analyzed and commented on annulment decisions and the annulment mechanism generally. Such discussions are included in the bibliography at Annex 3 of this paper. 62 Annulment is an essential but exceptional remedy. It is well understood that the grounds listed in Article 52(1) are the only grounds on which an award may be annulled. [footnote omitted] However, the application of that paragraph places a heavy responsibility on the ad hoc committees which must rule on requests for annulment. For example, in relation to a Tribunal’s alleged “excess of powers” they may have to make fine distinctions between failure to apply the applicable law, which is a ground for annulment, and incorrect interpretation of that law, which is not. With respect to allegations that a tribunal’s failure to deal with questions submitted to it constitutes a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure, or failure to state the reasons on which the award is based, they will have to assess the relevance of those questions, that is to say, their nature and potential effect, had they been dealt with, on the tribunal’s award. They are also likely to be called on to give specific meaning to such terms as “manifest,” “serious departure” and “fundamental rule of procedure” in judging the admissibility of claims for annulment. After these determinations have been made on the basis of objective legal analysis, the ad hoc committees may be faced with the delicate final task of weighing the conflicting claims of finality of the award, on the one hand and, on the other, of protection of parties against procedural injustice, as defined in the five sub-paragraphs of Article 52(1). This requires that an ad hoc committee be able to exercise a measure of discretion in ruling on applications for annulment.212 111. The task of an ad hoc Committee should also be assessed in the overall context of the ICSID case load. In its 50 year history, ICSID has registered 505 Convention arbitration cases and rendered 228 awards. Of these, 5 awards have been annulled in full and another 10 awards have been partially annulled. In other words, only 2 percent of all ICSID awards have led to full annulment and 4 percent have led to partial annulment. 212 Broches, supra note 6, at 354 & 355. 63 Annulment Proceedings under the ICSID Convention – Overview 505 Convention Arbitrations Registered 228 Convention Awards Rendered 90 Annulment Proceedings Instituted 37 Decisions Refusing Annulment 20 Proceedings Discontinued 15 Awards Annulled (5 in full + 10 in part) 112. While the number of applications for annulment registered annually fluctuates, the increase in annulment applications in the last 5 years reflects the vastly increased number of cases registered and awards rendered at ICSID in this same period. Since January 2011, 101 Convention awards were rendered, 49 annulment proceedings were instituted and 3 awards were partially annulled.213 At the same time, the number of discontinued applications for annulment has increased substantially, with 14 discontinuances since 2011. By comparison, in the period 2001 – 2010, 96 Convention awards were rendered, 33 annulments instituted, 8 awards were annulled in full or in part and 5 annulment applications were discontinued. Between 1971 – 2000, 31 awards were rendered, 6 annulment proceedings were instituted, 4 awards were annulled in full or in part (13 percent of awards were annulled in part or in full) and one was discontinued. As a result, the rate of annulment for the period since January 2011 is 3 percent, while the annulment rate for the years 1971 – 2000 is 13 percent, and the rate for the decade 2001 – 2010 is 8 percent. 213 See supra paras. 31 & 32. 64 Rate of Annulment 1971 - Present 120 101 96 100 80 60 49 40 31 33 20 6 8 4 3 0 1971-2000 2001-2010 2011- Rate of annulment: 13% 8% 3% Awards Rendered Annulment Proceedings Instituted Awards Annulled in Full or in Part Annulment Proceedings under the ICSID Convention - Outcomes 1971 - Present 120 101 100 96 80 60 40 23 18 20 13 14 9 8 4 3 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011- Number of Convention awards rendered Number of decisions rejecting the application for annulment Number of decisions annulling the award in part or in full Number of annulment proceedings discontinued 113. Finally, it is vital that ICSID Contracting States continue to supply the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators with capable, experienced and impartial individuals who may be called upon to apply the standards of Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. *** 65 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 1. Amco Asia Corporation Award of November 21, 1984 Berthold Goldman (French) Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern Annulled in part and others v. Republic of (Austrian) Indonesia 1 ICSID Rep. 413 (1993) Decision of May 16, 1986 (English); Unofficial French Isi Foighel (Danish) Florentino P. Feliciano ARB/81/1 translation in 114 J. Droit (Philippine)* 1 ICSID Rep. 509 (1993) Int’l 145 (1987) (excerpts) Edward W. Rubin (Canadian) (English); Unofficial French (Amco I) Andrea Giardina (Italian) translation in 114 J. Droit Int’l 175 (1987) (excerpts) 2. Amco Asia Corporation Award of June 5, 1990 Rosalyn Higgins (British) Sompong Sucharitkul Annulled in part and others v. Republic of (Thai)* (Supplemental Decision and Indonesia 1 ICSID Rep. 569 (1993) Marc Lalonde (Canadian) Rectification annulled) (English); Unofficial French Arghyrios A. Fatouros ARB/81/1- Resubmission translation in 118 J. Droit Per Magid (Danish) (Greek) Decision of December 17, Int’l 172 (1991) (excerpts) 1992 (Amco II) Dietrich Schindler (Swiss) 9 ICSID Rep. 9 (2006) (English) 3. Klöckner Industrie- Award of October 21, 1983 Eduardo Jimenez de Pierre Lalive (Swiss) Annulled in full Anlagen GmbH and Arechaga (Uruguayan)* others v. United Republic 111 J. Droit Int’l 409 (1984) Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Decision of May 3, 1985 of Cameroon and Société (French; excerpts); Unofficial William D. Rogers (U.S.) (Egyptian)* Camerounaise des English translation in 2 114 J. Droit Int’l 163 (1987) Engrais ICSID Rep. 9 (1994) Dominique Schmidt (French) Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern (French; excerpts); (Austrian) Unofficial English ARB/81/2 translation (Klöckner I) * Developing country nationality at the time of the appointment. ** Current as of April 15, 2016. Excludes members who resigned during the proceedings. 1 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 4. Klöckner Industrie- Award of January 26, 1988 Carl F. Salans (U.S.) Sompong Sucharitkul (Thai)* Annulment rejected Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic 14 ICSID Rep. 8 (2009) Jorge Castaneda (Mexican)* Andrea Giardina (Italian) Decision of May 17, 1990 of Cameroon and Société (English); French version Camerounaise des unpublished Juán Antonio Cremades Kebá Mbayé (Senegalese)* 14 ICSID Rep. 101 (2009) Engrais Sanz-Pastor (Spanish) (Unofficial English translation); French original ARB/81/2 – unpublished Resubmission (Klöckner II) 5. Southern Pacific Award of May 20, 1992 Eduardo Jimenez de Claude Reymond (Swiss) Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) Properties (Middle East) Arechaga (Uruguayan)* Limited v. Arab Republic English; Official French Arghyrios A. Fatouros of Egypt translation in 121 J. Droit Mohamed Amin Elabassy El (Greek) Int’l 229 (1994) (excerpts) Mahdi (Egyptian)* ARB/84/3 Kéba Mbaye (Senegalese)* Robert F. Pietrowski, Jr. (SPP) (U.S.) 6. Maritime International Award of January 6, 1988 Donald E. Zubrod (U.S.) Sompong Sucharitkul Annulled in part Nominees Establishment (Thai)* v. Republic of Guinea 4 ICSID Rep. 61 (1997) Jack Berg (U.S.) Decision of December 22, (English) Aron Broches (Dutch) 1989 ARB/84/4 David K. Sharpe (U.S.) Kéba Mbaye (Senegalese)* English; Unofficial French (MINE) translation in 1 La Juris. du CIRDI 291(2004) (excerpts) 2 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 7. Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Award of November 21, 2000 Francisco Rezek L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Annulled in part Vivendi Universal S.A. v. (Brazilian)* Argentine Republic English; Spanish James R. Crawford Decision of July 3, 2002 Thomas Buergenthal (U.S.) (Australian) ARB/97/3 English; Spanish; Peter D. Trooboff (U.S.) José Carlos Fernández Rozas Unofficial French (Vivendi I) (Spanish) translation in 130 J. Droit Int’l 195 (2003) 8. Compañía de Aguas del Award of August 20, 2007 J. William Rowley Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Annulment rejected Aconquija S.A. and (Canadian) (Egyptian)* Vivendi Universal S.A. v. English; Spanish Decision of August 10, Argentine Republic Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Andreas J. Jacovides 2010 (Swiss) (Cypriot) (including Separate Opinion ARB/97/3 – by Jan Hendrik Dalhuisen) Resubmission Carlos Bernal Verea Jan Hendrik Dalhuisen (Mexican)* (Dutch) English; Spanish (Vivendi II) 9. Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Award of May 8, 2008 Pierre Lalive (Swiss) L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Annulled in part Foundation v. Republic of Chile French; Spanish Mohammed Chemloul Piero Bernardini (Italian) Decision of December 18, (Algerian)* 2012 ARB/98/2 Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Emmanuel Gaillard (French) (Egyptian)* English; French (Pey Casado) 3 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 10. Wena Hotels Limited v. Award of December 8, 2000 Monroe Leigh (U.S.) Konstantinos D. Kerameus Annulment rejected Arab Republic of Egypt (Greek) English Ibrahim Fadlallah Decision of February 5, ARB/98/4 (Lebanese*/French) Andreas Bucher (Swiss) 2002 (Wena) Don Wallace, Jr. (U.S.) Francisco Orrego Vicuña English; Unofficial French (Chilean)* translation in 130 J. Droit Int’l 167 (2003) 11. Philippe Gruslin v. Award of November 28, 2000 Gavan Griffith (Australian) Thomas Buergenthal (U.S.) Discontinued Malaysia (Administrative and English Kamal Hossain Financial Regulation ARB/99/3 (Bangladeshi)* 14(3)(d)) (Gruslin) Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (Swiss) 12. Patrick Mitchell v. Award of February 9, 2004 Andreas Bucher (Swiss) Antonias C. Dimolitsa Annulled in full Democratic Republic of (Greek) the Congo English (excerpts); French Yawovi Agboyibo Decision of November 1, (excerpts) (Togolese)* Robert S.M. Dossou 2006 ARB/99/7 (Beninese)* Dissenting Opinion of Marc Lalonde (Canadian) English; French version in 2 (Mitchell) Arbitrator Yawovi Agboyibo Andrea Giardina (Italian) La Jurisprudence du CIRDI 333 (2010) 4 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 13. Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Award of December 22, 2003 Robert Briner (Swiss) Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Annulment rejected Kingdom of Morocco French Bernardo M. Cremades Arghyrios A. Fatouros Decision of January 18, ARB/00/6 (Spanish) (Greek) 2006 (RFCC) Ibrahim Fadlallah Franklin Berman (British) 26 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 196 (Lebanese*/French) (2011) (French; excerpts) 14. Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation Award of May 22, 2007 Francisco Orrego Vicuña Gavan Griffith (Australian) Annulled in part (formerly Enron (Chilean)* Corporation) and English; Spanish version Patrick L. Robinson Decision of July 30, 2010 Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. unpublished Albert Jan Van den Berg (Jamaican)* Argentine Republic (Dutch) English; Spanish version Per Tresselt (Norwegian) unpublished ARB/01/3 Pierre-Yves Tschanz (Swiss/Irish) (Enron) 15. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. Award of May 25, 2004 Andrés Rigo Sureda Gilbert Guillaume (French) Annulment rejected and MTD Chile S.A. v. (Spanish) Republic of Chile English; Spanish version James R. Crawford Decision of March 21, 2007 unpublished Marc Lalonde (Canadian) (Australian) ARB/01/7 English; Unofficial French Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Sara Ordoñez Noriega translation in 2 La Juris. (MTD) Rican)* (Colombian)* CIRDI 385 (2010) (excerpts) 5 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 16. CMS Gas Transmission Award of May 12, 2005 Francisco Orrego Vicuña Gilbert Guillaume (French) Annulled in part Company v. Argentine (Chilean)* Republic English; Spanish; Unofficial Nabil Elaraby (Egyptian)* Decision of September 25, French translation in 2 La Marc Lalonde (Canadian) 2007 ARB/01/8 Jurisprudence du CIRDI 177 James R. Crawford (2010) (excerpts) Francisco Rezek (Brazilian)* (Australian) English; Spanish (CMS) Unofficial French translation in 2 La Juris. du CIRDI 413 (2010) (excerpts) 17. Repsol YPF Ecuador Award of February 20, 2004 Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Judd L. Kessler (U.S.) Annulment rejected S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Rican)* Petróleos del Ecuador 26 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 231 Piero Bernardini (Italian) Decision of January 8, 2007 (Petroecuador) (2011) (Spanish; excerpts) Eduardo Carmigniani Valencia (Ecuadorian)* Gonzalo Biggs (Chilean)* Spanish; English Unofficial ARB/01/10 French translation in 2 La Alberto Wray Espinosa Juris. du CIRDI 375 (2010) (Repsol) (Ecuadorian)* (excerpts) 18. Azurix Corp. v. Award of July 14, 2006 Andrés Rigo Sureda Gavan Griffith (Australian) Annulment rejected Argentine Republic (Spanish) English; Spanish Bola Ajibola (Nigerian)* Decision of September 1, ARB/01/12 Marc Lalonde (Canadian) 2009 Michael Hwang (Azurix) Daniel H. Martins (Singaporean) English; Spanish (Uruguayan)* 6 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 19. LG&E Energy Corp., Award of July 25, 2007 Tatiana Bogdanowsky de No Committee appointed Discontinued (Rule 44) LG&E Capital Corp. and Maekelt (Venezuelan)* LG&E International Inc. English; Spanish v. Argentine Republic Francisco Rezek (Brazilian)* ARB/02/1 Albert Jan van den Berg (Dutch) (LG& E) 20. Hussein Nuaman Award of July 7, 2004 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Florentino P. Feliciano Annulment rejected Soufraki v. United Arab (Philippine)* Emirates English Aktham El Kholy Decision of June 5, 2007 (Egyptian)* Omar Nabulsi (Jordanian)* ARB/02/7 English; Unofficial French Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Brigitte Stern (French) translation in 2 La Juris. du (Soufraki) CIRDI 395 (2010) (excerpts) Dissenting Opinion by Omar Nabulsi English 21. Siemens A.G. v. Award of February 6, 2007 Andrés Rigo Sureda Gilbert Guillaume (French) Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) Argentine Republic (Spanish) English; Spanish version Florentino P. Feliciano ARB/02/8 unpublished Charles N. Brower (U.S.) (Philippine)* (Siemens) Domingo Bello Janeiro Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Spanish) (Guyanese)* 7 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 22. CDC Group plc v. Award of December 17, 2003 Anthony Mason Charles N. Brower (U.S.) Annulment rejected Republic of Seychelles (Australian) English Michael Hwang Decision of June 29, 2005 ARB/02/14 (Singaporean) English (CDC) David A. R. Williams (New Zealand) 23. Ahmonseto, Inc. and Award of June 18, 2007 Pierre Tercier (Swiss) Piero Bernardini (Italian) Discontinued others v. Arab Republic (Administrative and of Egypt Ibrahim Fadlallah Azzedine Kettani Financial Regulation 23 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 356 (Lebanese*/French) (Moroccan)* 14(3)(d) and (e)) ARB/02/15 (2008) (English; excerpts) Alain Viandier (French) Peter Tomka (Slovak)* (Ahmonseto) 24. Sempra Energy Award of September 28, 2007 Francisco Orrego Vicuña Christer Söderlund Annulled in full International v. (Chilean)* (Swedish) Argentine Republic English; Spanish Decision of June 29, 2010 Marc Lalonde (Canadian) David A.O. Edward (British) ARB/02/16 English; Spanish Sandra Morelli Rico Andreas J. Jacovides (Sempra) (Colombian)* (Cypriot) 8 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 25. Industria Nacional de Award of February 7, 2005 Thomas Buergenthal (U.S.) Hans Danelius (Swedish) Annulment rejected Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. English; Spanish Jan Paulsson (French) Andrea Giardina (Italian) Decision of September 5, (formerly Empresas 2007 Lucchetti, S.A. and Bernardo M. Cremades Franklin Berman (British) Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. (Spanish) English; Spanish Republic of Peru Unofficial French translation in 2 La Juris. du ARB/03/4 CIRDI 407 (2010) (excerpts) (Lucchetti) Dissenting Opinion by Franklin Berman English; Spanish 26. M.C.I. Power Group, Award of July 31, 2007 Raúl E. Vinuesa Dominique Hascher Annulment rejected L.C. and New Turbine, (Argentine)* (French) Inc. v. Republic of English; Spanish Decision of October 19, Ecuador Benjamin J. Greenberg Hans Danelius (Swedish) 2009 (Canadian) ARB/03/6 Peter Tomka (Slovak)* English; Spanish Jaime C. Irarrázabal (MCI) (Chilean)* 9 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 27. Continental Casualty Award of September 5, 2008 Giorgio Sacerdoti (Italian) Gavan Griffith (Australian) Annulment rejected Company v. Argentine Republic English V.V. Veeder (British) Bola Ajibola (Nigerian)* Decision of September 16, 2011 ARB/03/9 Michell Nader (Mexican)* Christer Söderlund (Swedish) English; Spanish (Continental Casualty) 28. Joy Mining Machinery Award of August 6, 2004 Francisco Orrego Vicuña Antonias C. Dimolitsa Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) Limited v. Arab Republic (Chilean)* (Greek) of Egypt English; Unofficial French translation in 132 J. Droit C.G. Weeramantry (Sri Michael Hwang ARB/03/11 Int’l 163 (2005) (excerpts) Lankan)* (Singaporean) (Joy Mining) William Laurence Craig José Luis Shaw (Uruguayan)* (U.S.) 29. El Paso Energy Award of October 31, 2011 Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Annulment rejected International Company Rican)* v. Argentine Republic English; Spanish Piero Bernardini (Italian) Decision of September 22, Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* 2014 ARB/03/15 Brigitte Stern (French) Rolf Knieper (German) English; Spanish (El Paso) 10 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 30. Suez, Sociedad General Award of April 9, 2015 Jeswald W. Salacuse (U.S.) Klaus Sachs (German) Pending de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi English Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Trevor A. Carmichael Universal S.A v. (Swiss) (Barbadian) Argentine Republic Pedro Nikken (Venezuelan) Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa ARB/03/19 Rican) (Suez) 31. EDF International S.A., Award of June 11, 2012 William W. Park (U.S.) Christopher J. Greenwood Annulment rejected SAUR International S.A. (British) and León English Decision of February 5, Participaciones Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* 2016 Argentinas S.A. v. (Swiss) Argentine Republic Yasuhei Taniguchi (Japanese) English Spanish Jesús Remón (Spanish) ARB/03/23 (EDF) 32. Fraport AG Frankfurt Award of August 16, 2007 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Peter Tomka (Slovak)* Annulled in full Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of English Bernardo M. Cremades Dominique Hascher (French) Decision of December 23, the Philippines (Spanish) 2010 Campbell McLachlan (New ARB/03/25 W. Michael Reisman (U.S.) Zealand) English (Fraport) 11 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 33. Duke Energy Award of August 18, 2008 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Campbell McLachlan (New Annulment rejected International Peru Zealand) Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. English Guido Santiago Tawil Decision of March 1, 2011 Republic of Peru (Argentine)* Dominique Hascher (French) English ARB/03/28 Pedro Nikken (Venezuelan)* Peter Tomka (Slovak)* (Duke Energy) 34. Total S.A. v. Argentine Award of November 27, 2013 Giorgio Sacerdoti (Italian) Eduardo Zuleta Annulment rejected Republic (Colombian) * English; Spanish Henri Alvarez (Canadian) Decision of February 1, ARB/04/1 Alvaro Rodrigo Castellanos 2016 Luis Herrera Marcano Howell (Guatemalan)* (Total) (Venezuelan)* English; Spanish Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* 35. SAUR International v. Award of May 22, 2014 Juan Fernández-Armesto Eduardo Zuleta Pending Argentine Republic (Spanish) (Colombian)* French; Spanish ARB/04/4 Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Alvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Howell (Guatemalan)* (SAUR) Christian Tomuschat (German) Abdulgawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somali)* 12 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 36. Compagnie Award of March 7, 2008 Ibrahim Fadlallah Franklin Berman (British) Annulment rejected d'Exploitation du (Lebanese*/French) Chemin de Fer Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Decision of May 11, 2010 Transgabonais v. 26 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 181 Charles Jarrosson (French) (Egyptian)* Gabonese Republic (2011) (French; excerpts) 26 ICSID Rev.— FILJ 214 Michel Gentot (French) Rolf Knieper (German) (2011) (French; excerpts) ARB/04/5 (Transgabonais) 37. Sociedad Anónima Award of August 21, 2007 Claus von Wobeser Christer Söderlund Annulment rejected Eduardo Vieira v. (Mexican)* (Swedish) Republic of Chile Spanish Decision of December 10, Susana B. Czar de Zalduendo Piero Bernardini (Italian) 2010 ARB/04/7 Dissenting Opinion of (Argentine)* Arbitrator Susana B. Czar de Eduardo Silva Romero Spanish (Vieira) Zalduendo W. Michael Reisman (U.S.) (Colombian*/French) Spanish 38. Daimler Financial Award of August 22, 2012 Pierre-Marie Dupuy Eduardo Zuleta Annulment rejected Services AG v. Argentine (French) (Colombian)* Republic English Decision of January 7, 2015 Charles N. Brower (U.S.) Florentino P. Feliciano ARB/05/1 Dissenting Opinion of (Philippine)* English; Spanish Arbitrator Charles N. Brower Domingo Bello Janeiro (Daimler) (Spanish) Makhdoom Ali Khan English (Pakistani)* 13 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 39. Malaysian Historical Award of May 17, 2007 Michael Hwang Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Annulled in full Salvors, SDN, BHD v. (Singaporean) Malaysia English Mohamed Shahabuddeen Decision of April 16, 2009 (Guyanese)* ARB/05/10 English Peter Tomka (Slovak)* (MHS) Dissenting Opinion of Mohamed Shahabuddeen* English Unofficial French translation in 2 La Jurisprudence du CIRDI 559 (2010) (excerpts) 40. RSM Production Award of March 13, 2009 V.V. Veeder (British) Gavan Griffith (Australian) Discontinued Corporation v. Grenada (Administrative and English Bernard Audit (French) Cecil W.M. Abraham Financial Regulation ARB/05/14 (Malaysian)* 14(3)(d) and (e)) David Berry (Canadian) (RSM) Campbell McLachlan (New Zealand) 14 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 41. Waguih Elie George Siag Award of June 1, 2009 David A.R. Williams (New Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Discontinued (Rule 45) and Clorinda Vecchi v. Zealand) Arab Republic of Egypt English Azzedine Kettani Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Moroccan)* ARB/05/15 Dissenting Opinion of (Chilean)* Arbitrator Francisco Orrego Peter Tomka (Slovak)* (Siag) Vicuña Michael C. Pryles (Australian) English 42. Rumeli Telekom A.S. Award of July 29, 2008 Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Annulment rejected and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon English Stewart Boyd (British) Campbell McLachlan (New Decision of March 25, 2010 Hizmetleri A.S. v. Zealand) Republic of Kazakhstan Marc Lalonde (Canadian) English Eduardo Silva Romero ARB/05/16 (Colombian*/French) (Rumeli) 43. Ioannis Kardassopoulos Award of March 3, 2010 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Dominique Hascher Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) v. Georgia (French) English Francisco Orrego Vicuña ARB/05/18 (Chilean)* Cecil W.M. Abraham (Malaysian)* (Kardassopoulos) Vaughan Lowe (British) Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (German) 15 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 44. Helnan International Award of July 3, 2008 Yves Derains (French) Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Annulled in part Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt English Michael J.A. Lee (British) Bola Ajibola (Nigerian)* Decision of June 14, 2010 ARB/05/19 Rudolf Dolzer (German) Campbell McLachlan (New English Zealand) (Helnan) 45. Ioan Micula, Viorel Award of December 11, 2013 Laurent Lévy (Swiss/ Claus von Wobeser Annulment rejected Micula and others v. Brazilian*) (Mexican)* Romania English Decision of February 26, Stanimir A. Alexandrov Bernardo M. Cremades 2016 ARB/05/20 Separate Opinion of (Bulgarian)* (Spanish) Arbitrator Georges Abi-Saab English (Micula) Georges Abi-Saab Abdulgawi Ahmed Yusuf (Egyptian)* (Somali)* 46. Quiborax S.A. and Non- Award of September 16, 2015 Gabrielle Kaufmann- Andrés Rigo Sureda Pending Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Kohler (Swiss) (Spanish) Plurinational State of English Bolivia Marc Lalonde (Canadian) Milton Estuardo Argueta Partial Dissenting Opinion of Pinto (Guatemalan) ARB/06/2 Arbitrator Brigitte Stern Brigitte Stern (French) English Christer Söderlund (Swedish) (Quiborax) 16 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 47. Togo Electricité and Award of August 10, 2010 Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Albert Jan van den Berg Annulment rejected GDF-Suez Energie (Egyptian)* (Dutch) Services v. Republic of French Decision of September 6, Togo Marc Gruninger (Swiss) Franklin Berman (British) 2011 ARB/06/7 Marc Lalonde (Canadian) Rolf Knieper (German) French (Togo Electricité ) 48. Libananco Holdings Co. Award of September 2, 2011 Michael Hwang Andrés Rigo Sureda Annulment rejected Limited v. Republic of (Singaporean) (Spanish) Turkey English Decision of May 22, 2013 Henri C. Álvarez (Canadian) Hans Danelius (Swedish) ARB/06/8 English (excerpts) Franklin Berman (British) Eduardo Silva Romero (Libananco) (Colombian*/French) 49. Occidental Petroleum Award of October 5, 2012 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Juan Fernández-Armesto Annulled in part Corp. and Occidental (Spanish) Exploration and English; Spanish Brigitte Stern (French) Decision of November 2, Production Co. v. Florentino P. Feliciano 2015 Republic of Ecuador Dissenting Opinion of David A.R. Williams (New (Philippine)* Arbitrator Brigitte Stern Zealand) English; Spanish ARB/06/11 Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa English; Spanish Rican)* (Occidental) 17 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 50. Joseph C. Lemire v. Award of March 28, 2011 Juan Fernández-Armesto Claus von Wobeser Annulment rejected Ukraine (Spanish) (Mexican)* English Decision of July 8, 2013 ARB/06/18 Jan Paulsson (French) Azzedine Kettani (Moroccan)* English (excerpts) (Lemire) Jurgen Voss (German) Eduardo Zuleta (Colombian)* 51. Nations Energy, Inc. and Award of November 24, 2010 Alexis Mourre (French) Stanimir A. Alexandrov Discontinued others v. Republic of (Bulgarian)* (Administrative and Panama Spanish José María Chillón Medina Financial Regulation (Spanish) Jaime C. Irarrázabal 14(3)(d) and (e)) ARB/06/19 (Chilean)* Claus von Wobeser (Nations) (Mexican)* Enrique Gómez-Pinzón (Colombian)* 52. RSM Production Award of July 11, 2011 Azzedine Kettani Bernardo M. Cremades Annulment rejected Corporation v. Central (Moroccan)* (Spanish) African Republic French (excerpts) Decision of February 20, Philippe Merle (French) Abdulgawi Ahmed Yusuf 2013 ARB/07/2 (Somali)* Brigitte Stern (French) French (excerpts) (RSM) Fernando Mantilla-Serrano (Colombian)* 18 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 53. Tza Yap Shum v. Award of July 7, 2011 Judd L. Kessler (U.S.) Dominique Hascher Annulment rejected Republic of Peru (French) Spanish Hernando Otero Decision of February 12, ARB/07/6 (Colombian)* Donald M. McRae (Canadian) 2015 (Shum) Juan Fernández-Armesto Kaj Hobér (Swedish) Spanish (Spanish) 54. Toto Costruzioni Award of June 7, 2012 Hans van Houtte (Belgian) Emmanuel Gaillard Discontinued (Rules 53 and Generali S.p.A. v. (French) 44) Republic of Lebanon English Stephen M. Schwebel (U.S.) Michael C. Pryles ARB/07/12 Fadi Moghaizel (Lebanese)* (Australian) (Toto) Andrés Rigo Sureda (Spanish) 55. Ron Fuchs v. Georgia Award of March 3, 2010 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Dominique Hascher Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) (French) ARB/07/15 English Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Chilean)* Cecil W. M. Abraham (Fuchs) (Malaysian)* Vaughan Lowe (British) Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (German) 19 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 56. Impregilo S.p.A. v. Award of June 21, 2011 Hans Danelius (Swedish) Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Annulment rejected Argentine Republic Rican)* English; Spanish Charles N. Brower (U.S.) Decision of January 24, ARB/07/17 Eduardo Zuleta (Colombian)* 2014 Brigitte Stern (French) (Impregilo) Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* English; Spanish 57. AES Summit Generation Award of September 23, 2010 Claus von Wobeser Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Annulment rejected Limited and AES-Tisza (Mexican)* Erömü Kft. v. Republic English Rolf Knieper (German) Decision of June 29, 2012 of Hungary J. William Rowley (Canadian) Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf English ARB/07/22 (Somali)* Brigitte Stern (French) (AES) 58. Venezuela Holdings B.V. Award of October 9, 2014 Gilbert Guillaume (French) Franklin Berman (British) Pending and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela English; Spanish Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Cecil W.M. Abraham (Egyptian)* (Malaysian)* ARB/07/27 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Rolf Knieper (German) (Venezuela Holdings) (Swiss) 20 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 59. SGS Société Générale de Award of February 10, 2012 Stanimir A. Alexandrov Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Annulment rejected Surveillance S.A. v. (Bulgarian)* Rican)* Republic of Paraguay English; Spanish Decision of May 19, 2014 Donald Donovan (U.S.) Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf ARB/07/29 (Somali)* English Pablo García Mexía (Spanish) (SGS v. Paraguay) Eduardo Zuleta (Colombian)* 60. Astaldi S.p.A. v. Republic Award of September 17, 2010 Eduardo Sancho González Juan Fernández-Armesto Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) of Honduras (Costa Rican)* (Spanish) Spanish ARB/07/32 Jaime C. Irarrázabal (Chilean)* (Astaldi) Eduardo Silva Romero (Colombian*/French) 61. ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Award of May 18, 2010 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Gilbert Guillaume (French) Discontinued (Rule 44) Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan English Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri Juan Fernández-Armesto (Egyptian)* (Spanish) ARB/08/2 W. Michael Reisman (U.S.) Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) (ATA) 21 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 62. Caratube International Award of June 5, 2012 Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Juan Fernández-Armesto Annulment rejected Oil Company LLP v. (German) (Spanish) Republic of Kazakhstan English Decision of July 10, 2014 Gavan Griffith (Australian) Cecil W.M. Abraham ARB/08/12 (Malaysian)* English Kamal Hossain (Caratube) (Bangladeshi)* Hans Danelius (Swedish) 63. Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Award of July 16, 2012 William W. Park (U.S.) Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Annulment rejected Republic of Turkey English (excerpts) Marc Lalonde (Canadian) Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Decision of July 10, 2014 ARB/08/13 (German) Brigitte Stern (French) English (Alapli) Makhdoom Ali Khan (Pakistani)* 64. Malicorp Limited v. Arab Award of February 7, 2011 Pierre Tercier (Swiss) Andrés Rigo Sureda Annulment rejected Republic of Egypt (Spanish) English; French Luiz Olavo Baptista Decision of July 3, 2013 ARB/08/18 (Brazilian)* Stanimir A. Alexandrov (Bulgarian)* English; French (Malicorp) Pierre-Yves Tschanz (Swiss/Irish) Eduardo Silva Romero (Colombian*/French) 22 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 65. Karmer Marble Tourism Construction Industry Award of August 9, 2012 Marc Lalonde (Canadian) No Committee appointed Discontinued (Rule 44) and Commerce Limited Liability Company v. Unpublished Francisco Orrego Vicuña Georgia (Chilean)* ARB/08/19 Eric Schwartz (U.S./French) (Karmer) 66. Deutsche Bank AG v. Award of October 31, 2012 Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Andrés Rigo Sureda Pending Democratic Socialist (Spanish) Republic of Sri Lanka English Makhdoom Ali Khan (Pakistani)* Hans Danelius (Swedish) ARB/09/2 Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Makhdoom Ali David A.R. Williams (New Azzedine Kettani (Deutsche Bank) Khan Zealand) (Moroccan)* English 67. Elsamex, S.A. v. Award of November 16, 2012 Enrique Gómez-Pinzón Andrés Jana (Chilean)* Discontinued (Rule 43(1)) Republic of Honduras (Colombian)* Spanish Jan Paulsson ARB/09/4 (Swedish/French/Bahraini) (Elsamex) Álvaro Castellanos (Guatemalan)* 23 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 68. Iberdrola Energía, S.A. Award of August 17, 2012 Eduardo Zuleta Enrique Barros Bourie Annulment rejected v. Republic of Guatemala (Colombian)* (Chilean)* Spanish Decision of January 13, ARB/09/5 Yves Derains (French) Piero Bernardini (Italian) 2015 Spanish (Iberdrola) Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa José Luis Shaw (Uruguayan)* Rican)* Dissenting Opinion of José Luis Shaw: Spanish 69. KT Asia Investment Award of October 17, 2013 Gabrielle Kaufmann- Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa Discontinued Group B.V. v. Republic Kohler (Swiss) Rican)* (Administrative and of Kazakhstan Financial Regulation English Ian Glick (British) Lawrence Boo (Singaporean) 14(3)(d) and (e)) ARB/09/8 J.Christopher Thomas Michael C. Pryles (KT Asia) (Canadian) (Australian) 70. Adem Dogan v. Award of August 12, 2014 Jan Paulsson (Swedish/ Piero Bernardini (Italian) Annulment rejected Turkmenistan French/Bahraini) Unpublished Makhdoom Ali Khan Decision of January 15, ARB/09/9 Phillippe Sands (British/ (Pakistani)* 2016 French) (Dogan) Jacomijn J. Van Haersolte- English Markus Wirth (Swiss) Van Hof (Dutch) 24 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 71. H&H Enterprises Award of May 6, 2014 Bernardo M. Cremades Stanimir A. Alexandrov Pending Investments, Inc. v. Arab (Spanish) (Bulgarian)* Republic of Egypt Unpublished Hamid G. Gharavi (Iranian*/ Cecil. W.M. Abraham ARB/09/15 French) (Malaysian)* (H & H) Veijo Heiskanen (Finnish) Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* 72. Commerce Group Corp. Award of March 14, 2011 Albert Jan van den Berg Emmanuel Gaillard Discontinued and San Sebastian Gold (Dutch) (French) (Administrative and Mines, Inc. v. Republic English; Spanish Financial Regulation of El Salvador Horacio A. Grigera Naón Michael C. Pryles 14(3)(d)) (Argentine)* (Australian) ARB/09/17 English J. Christopher Thomas Christoph H. Schreuer (Commerce Group) (Canadian) (Austrian) 73. Carnegie Minerals Award of July 14, 2015 Donald Donovan (U.S.) Donald M. McRae Pending (Gambia) Limited v. (Canadian, New Zealand) Republic of The Gambia Unpublished Jean Engelmayer Kalicki (U.S.) Zhidong Chen (Chinese) ARB/09/19 Philippe Pinsolle (Swiss, Bernardo M. Cremades (Carnegie Minerals) French) (Spanish) 25 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 74. Kilıç İnşaat İthalat Award of July 2, 2014 J. William Rowley (British, Andrés Rigo Sureda Annulment rejected İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Canadian) (Spanish) Anonim Şirketi v. English Decision of July 14, 2015 Turkmenistan William W. Park (Swiss/ Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel English U.S.) (German) ARB/10/1 Phillippe Sands (British/ Hi-Taek Shin (Korean) (Kilıç) French) 75. Antoine Abou Lahoud Award of February 7, 2014 William W. Park (Swiss, Azzedine Kettani Annulment rejected and Leila Bounafeh- U.S.) (Morrocan)* Abou Lahoud v. English Decision of March 29, 2016 Democratic Republic of Karim Hafez (Egyptian)* Kaj Hobér (Swedish) the Congo French Marie Andrée Ngwee Rolf Knieper (German) ARB/10/4 (French) (Lahoud) 76. Tidewater Investment Award of March 13, 2015 Campbell McLachlan (New Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf Pending SRL and Tidewater Zealand) (Somali) Caribe, C.A. v. English; Spanish Bolivarian Republic of Andrés Rigo Sureda Cecil W.M. Abraham Venezuela (Spanish) (Malaysian) ARB/10/5 Brigitte Stern (French) Rolf Knieper (German) (Tidewater) 26 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 77. Standard Chartered Award of November 2, 2012 William W. Park (Swiss/ No Committee appointed Pending Bank v. United Republic U.S.) of Tanzania English Barton Legum (U.S.) ARB/10/12 Michael C. Pryles (SCB) (Australian) 78. Bernhard von Pezold and Award of July 28, 2015 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Veijo Heiskanen (Finnish) others v. Republic of Pending Zimbabwe English Michael Hwang Jean Engelmayer Kalicki (Singaporean) (U.S.) ARB/10/15 David A.R. Williams (New Azzedine Kettani (Moroccan) (von Pezold) Zealand) 79. Renée Rose Levy de Levi Award of February 26, 2014 Rodrigo Oreamuno (Costa John Townsend (U.S.) Discontinued (Rule 44) v. Republic of Peru Rican)* English; Spanish Andreas Bucher (Swiss) ARB/10/17 Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Dissenting Opinion of Hi-Taek Shin (Korean) (Levy de Levi) Arbitrator Joaquin Morales Joaquin Morales Goody Godoy (Chilean)* English; Spanish 27 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 80. Flughafen Zürich A.G. Award of November 18, 2014 Juan-Fernández Armesto Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Pending and Gestión e Ingenería (Spanish) Howell (Guatemalan) IDC S.A. v. Bolivarian Spanish Republic of Venezuela Henri C. Alvarez (Canadian) Shoschana Zusman Tinman (Peruvian) ARB/10/19 Raúl E. Vinuesa (Spanish/ Argentine*) Carlos Urrutia Valenzuela (Flughafen) (Colombian) 81. TECO Guatemala Award of December 19, 2013 Alexis Mourre (French) Bernard Hanotiau (Belgian) Annulled in part Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala English; Spanish William W. Park Tinuade Oyekunle Decision of April 5, 2016 (Swiss/U.S.) (Nigerian)* ARB/10/23 English Claus von Wobeser Klaus Sachs (German) (TECO) (Mexican)* 82. Border Timbers Limited, Award of July 28, 2015 L. Yves Fortier (Canadian) Veijo Heiskanen (Finnish) Pending Timber Products International (Private) Unpublished Michael Hwang Jean Engelmayer Kalicki Limited, and Hangani (Singaporean) (U.S.) Development Co. (Private) Limited v. David A. R. Williams (New Azzedine Kettani (Moroccan) Republic of Zimbabwe Zealand) ARB/10/25 (Border Timbers) 28 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 83. Highbury International Award of September 26, 2013 Enrique Barros Bourie José Carlos Fernández Pending AVV and Ramstein (Chilean)* Rozas (Spanish) Trading Inc. v Spanish Bolivarian Republic of Guido Santiago Tawil Paolo Michele Patocchi Venezuela (Argentine)* (Swiss) ARB/11/1 Claus von Wobeser Alvaro Rodrigo Castellanos (Mexican)* Howell (Guatemalan)* (Highbury) 84. Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Award of July 16, 2013 Gavan Griffith (Australian) Andrés Rigo Sureda Discontinued (Rule 44) Republic of Indonesia (Spanish) English Joan. E. Donoghue (U.S.) ARB/11/13 Teresa Cheng (Chinese)* Separate Concurring Opinion Muthucumaraswamy (Rizvi) of Arbitrator Sornarajah (Australian) Rolf Knieper (German) Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah English 85. Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Award of March 30, 2015 Rolf Knieper (German) Ronald M. McRae Pending Petroleum Products (Canadian, New Zealand) Societe Anonyme S.A. v. English Steven A. Hammond (U.S.) Republic of Albania Doug Jones (Australian, Irish) Dissenting Opinion of Yas Banifatemi (Iranian, ARB/11/24 arbitrator Steven A. French) August Reinisch (Austrian) Hammond (Mamidoil) English 29 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 86. OI European Group B.V. Award of March 10, 2015 Juan Fernández-Armesto Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Pending v Bolivarian Republic of (Spanish) Howell (Guatemalan) Venezuela Spanish Francisco Orrego Vicuña Piero Bernardini (Italian) ARB/11/25 (Chilean)* David A. Pawlak (U.S., Irish) (OI European) Alexis Mourre (French) 87. Tulip Real Estate and Award of March 10, 2014 Gavan Griffith (Australian) Peter Tomka (Slovak) Annulment rejected Development Netherlands B.V. v. English Michael Evan Jaffe Cherie Booth (British) Decision of December 30, Republic of Turkey (U.S.) 2015 Separate Opinion of Michael Christoph H. Schreuer ARB/11/28 Evan Jaffe Rolf Knieper (Austrian) English (German) (Tulip) English 88. Gambrinus, Corp. v. Award of June 15, 2015 Piero Bernardini Cecil W.M. Abraham Pending Bolivarian Republic of (Italian) (Malaysian) Venezuela Unpublished Marc Lalonde Hussein A. Hassouna ARB/11/31 (Canadian) (Egyptian) (Gambrinus) Pierre-Marie Dupuy Michael C. Pryles (French) (Australian) 30 Annex 1 Pending and Concluded Annulment Proceedings Case Award Tribunal** Ad Hoc Committee** Outcome (Short Title) (President in Bold) (President in Bold) 89. Venoklim Holding B.V. Award of April 3, 2015 Yves Derains Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Pending v. Bolivarian Republic of (French) Howell (Guatemalan) Venezuela Spanish Enrique Gómez Pinzón Piero Bernardini (Italian) ARB/12/22 Concurring and dissenting (Colombian) opinion of Enrique Gómez José Antonio Moreno (Venoklim) Pinzón Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco Rodríguez (Paraguayan) (Costa Rican) Spanish 90. Poštová banka, a.s. and Award of April 9, 2015 Eduardo Zuleta Azzedine Kettani Pending ISTROKAPITAL SE v. (Colombian) (Moroccan) Hellenic Republic English John M. Townsend David A. O. Edward ARB/13/8 (U.S.) (British) (Poštová banka) Brigitte Stern Hi-Taek Shin (French) (Korean) 31 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 1. Amco Asia Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part Corporation and others v. Republic (b) Failure to apply proper law Y Decision of May, 16, of Indonesia 1986 (d) Lack of impartiality N ARB/81/1 1 ICSID Rep. 509 (d) Treatment of evidence N (1993) (English); (Amco I) Unofficial French (e) Failure to state reasons N translation in 114 J.Droit Int’l 175 (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons Not (1987) (excerpts) addressed (e) Contradictory reasons Y 2. Amco Asia Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part Corporation and (b) Failure to apply proper law N others v. Republic Decision of December of Indonesia (d) Lack of impartiality N 17, 1992 ARB/81/1- (d) Treatment of evidence N 9 ICSID Rep. 9 (2006) Resubmission (English) (d) Inequality of treatment Y (Amco II) (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N Claimants Partial (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N *In a number of annulment proceedings, the Applicant characterized its arguments as falling within more than one of the grounds for annulment envisaged in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. 1 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 3. Klöckner Claimants Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in full Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others (b) Failure to apply proper law Y English v. United Republic of Cameroon and (d) Lack of due process N Société Camerounaise des (d) Lack of impartiality N Engrais (d) Right to be heard N ARB/81/2 (d) Lack of deliberation N (Klöckner I) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions Y 4. Klöckner Respondent Not specified (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others (d) Lack of impartiality N v. United Republic (d) Right to be heard N of Cameroon and Société (d) Lack of deliberations N Camerounaise des Engrais (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/81/2 – (e) Failure to state reasons N Resubmission (e) Contradictory reasons N (Klöckner II) Claimants Partial (e) Failure to state reasons N 2 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 5. Southern Pacific Respondent Not specified Discontinued Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt ARB/84/3 (SPP) 6. Maritime Respondent Partial (b) Failure to apply proper law Not Annulled in part International addressed Nominees (d) Right to be heard Not English Establishment v. addressed Republic of (e) Failure to state reasons Y Guinea (e) Contradictory reasons Y ARB/84/4 (e) Failure to deal with questions Y (MINE) 7. Compañía de Claimants Partial (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction Y Annulled in part Aguas del Aconquija S.A. (d) Right to be heard N English and Vivendi (e) Failure to state reasons N Spanish Universal S.A. v. Argentine (e) Contradictory reasons Not Republic addressed ARB/97/3 (Vivendi I) 3 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 8. Compañía de Respondent Full (a) Improper constitution of the tribunal N Annulment rejected Aguas del Aconquija S.A. English and Vivendi (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Universal S.A. v. Spanish Argentine (b) Failure to apply proper law N Republic (d) Lack of impartiality N ARB/97/3- Resubmission (d) Treatment of evidence N (Vivendi II) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 9. Víctor Pey Casado Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part and President Allende English (b) Failure to apply proper law N Foundation v. Republic of Chile French (d) Lack of due process/inequality of N ARB/98/2 treatment (d) Lack of impartiality N (Pey Casado) (d) Right to be heard Y (d) Burden of proof/treatment of evidence N (e) Contradictory reasons Y 4 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 10. Wena Hotels Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (b) Failure to apply proper law N English ARB/98/4 (d) Right to be heard N (Wena) (d) Treatment of evidence N (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 11. Philippe Gruslin v. Claimant Not Specified Discontinued Malaysia ARB/99/3 (Gruslin) 12. Patrick Mitchell v. Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction Y Annulled in full Democratic Republic of the (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Congo (e) Failure to state reasons Y ARB/99/7 (e) Contradictory reasons N (Mitchell) 5 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 13. Consortium Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of (d) Right to be heard N Morocco ARB/00/6 (e) Failure to state reasons N (RFCC) (e) Contradictory reasons N 14. Enron Creditors Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part Recovery Corporation (b) Failure to apply proper law Y English (formerly Enron (d) Lack of impartiality N Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, (d) Right to be heard N L.P. v. Argentine Republic (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/01/3 (d) Breach of party autonomy N (e) Failure to state reasons Y (Enron) (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 15. MTD Equity Sdn. Respondent Full (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected Bhd. and MTD (d) Right to be heard N Chile S.A. v. English Republic of Chile (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N 6 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* ARB/01/7 (e) Contradictory reasons N (MTD) 16. CMS Gas Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part Transmission Company v. (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Argentine Republic Spanish (e) Failure to state reasons Y ARB/01/8 (e) Contradictory reasons N (CMS) 17. Repsol YPF Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal (b) Failure to apply proper law N Spanish Petróleos del Ecuador English (Petroecuador) (unofficial translation) ARB/01/10 (Repsol) 18. Azurix Corp. v. Respondent Full (a) Improper constitution of the tribunal N Annulment rejected Argentine Republic (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N English (b) Failure to apply proper law N ARB/01/12 Spanish (d) Lack of impartiality N (Azurix) (d) Treatment of evidence N 7 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 19. LG & E Energy Both Partial Discontinued Corp., LG & E Capital Corp. and Order of LG & Discontinuance International Inc. v. Argentine English Republic Spanish ARB/02/1 (LG&E) 20. Hussein Nuaman Claimant Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N English ARB/02/7 (b) Failure to apply proper law N (Soufraki) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N 8 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 21. Siemens A.G. v. Respondent Full Discontinued Argentine Republic ARB/02/8 (Siemens) 22. CDC Group plc v. Respondent Full (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected Republic of Seychelles (d) Lack of impartiality N English ARB/02/14 (d) Lack of deliberation N (d) Treatment of evidence N (CDC) (d) Untimely issuance of award N (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 23. Ahmonseto, Inc. Claimant Partial Discontinued and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt ARB/02/15 (Ahmonseto) 9 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 24. Sempra Energy Respondent Full (a) Improper constitution of the tribunal Not Annulled in full International v. addressed Argentine (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N English Republic (b) Failure to apply proper law Y Spanish ARB/02/16 (d) Treatment of evidence Not addressed (Sempra) (e) Failure to state reasons N 25. Industria Nacional Claimants Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N English S.A. (formerly Empresas (b) Failure to apply proper law N Spanish Lucchetti, S.A. and (d) Lack of due process N Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic (d) Treatment of evidence N of Peru (e) Contradictory reasons N ARB/03/4 (Lucchetti) 26. M.C.I. Power Claimants Partial (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. (b) Failure to apply proper law N English v. Republic of Ecuador (e) Failure to state reasons N Spanish (e) Contradictory reasons N ARB/03/6 (e) Failure to deal with questions N (MCI) 10 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 27. Continental Respondent Partial (b) Contradictory reasons N Annulment rejected Casualty Company (e) Failure to state reasons N v. Argentine Claimant Partial (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Republic (d) Treatment of evidence N Spanish ARB/03/9 (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N (Continental Casualty) (e) Failure to deal with questions N 28. Joy Mining Claimant Full Discontinued Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic English of Egypt ARB/03/11 (Joy Mining) 29. El Paso Energy Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected International (b) Contradictory conclusions/reasons N Company v. English Argentine (b) Failure to apply proper law N Republic Spanish (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/03/15 (d) Lack of due process N (d) Right to be heard N (El Paso) (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 30. EDF International Respondent Full (a) Improper constitution of the tribunal N Annulment rejected S.A., SAUR (b) Failure to apply proper law N 11 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* International S.A. (b) Treatment of evidence N English Spanish and León Participaciones (d) Lack of impartiality N Argentinas S.A. v. (d) Lack of due process N Argentine Republic (d) Treatment of evidence N (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/03/23 (e) Treatment of evidence N (EDFI v. Argentina) 31. Fraport AG Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulled in full Frankfurt Airport Services (d) Lack of due process N English Worldwide v. Republic of the (d) Right to be heard Y Philippines (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/03/25 (e) Contradictory reasons N (Fraport) 32. Duke Energy Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected International Peru Investments No. 1 English (b) Failure to apply proper law N Ltd. v. Republic of Peru (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/03/28 (e) Contradictory reasons N (Duke Energy) (e) Failure to deal with questions N 12 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 33. Total S.A. v. Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Argentine Republic (d) Right to be heard N English ARB/04/1 (e) Contradictory reasons N Spanish (Total) 34. Compagnie Respondent Full (a) Improper constitution of the tribunal N Annulment rejected d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N 26(1) ICSID Rev.— Transgabonais v. (b) Failure to apply proper law N FILJ 214 (2011) Gabonese (French; excerpts) Republic (d) Treatment of evidence N (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/04/5 (e) Contradictory reasons N (Transgabonais) 35. Sociedad Anónima Claimant Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Spanish (b) Failure to apply proper law N ARB/04/7 (d) Right to be heard N (Vieira) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 36. Daimler Financial Claimant Partial (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected Services 13 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* (d) Treatment of evidence/ burden of N English ARB/05/01 proof (d) Right to be heard N Spanish (Daimler) (d) Failure to decide by a majority N (d) Unreasonable delay N (e) Failure to deal with questions N (e) Contradictory reasons N 37. Malaysian Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction Y Annulled in full Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. English Malaysia ARB/05/10 (MHS) 38. RSM Production Claimant Full Discontinued Corporation v. Grenada ARB/05/14 (RSM v. Grenada) 14 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 39. Waguih Elie Respondent Full Discontinued George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt ARB/05/15 (Siag) 40. Rumeli Telekom Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected A.S. and Telsim Mobil (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. (d) Treatment of evidence N Republic of Kazakhstan (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/05/16 (e) Contradictory reasons N (Rumeli) (e) Failure to deal with questions N 41. Ioannis Respondent Partial Discontinued Kardassopoulos v. Georgia ARB/05/18 (Kardassopoulos) 15 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 42. Helnan Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction Y Annulled in part International Hotels A/S v. Arab (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Republic of Egypt (d) Right to be heard N ARB/05/19 (d) Treatment of evidence N (Helnan) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 43. Ioan Micula, Respondent Full (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (b) Failure to deal with questions N English ARB/05/20 (d) Burden of proof N (Micula) (e) Failure to decide N (e) Failure to deal with questions N (e) Contradictory reasons N 44. Togo Electricité Respondent Full (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected and GDF-Suez Energie Services v. (d) Right to be heard N French Republic of Togo (e) Failure to state reasons N ARB/06/7 (Togo Electricité) 16 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 45. Libananco Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Holdings Co. Limited v. (b) Failure to apply proper law N English (excerpts) Republic of Turkey (d) Lack of impartiality N ARB/06/8 (d) Lack of due process/violation of N equality of arms (Libananco) (d) Treatment of evidence N (d) Untimely issuance of award N (e) Failure to state reasons N 46. Occidental Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction Y Annulled in part Petroleum Corp. and Occidental (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Spanish Exploration and (d) Lack of reasoning N Production Co. v. Republic of (e) Failure to state reasons N Ecuador (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N ARB/06/11 (e) Failure to deal with questions N (Occidental) (e) Contradictory reasons N 47. Joseph C. Lemire Respondent Partial (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected v. Ukraine (d) Right to be heard N English ARB/06/18 (excerpts) (e) Failure to state reasons N (Lemire) 17 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 48. Nations Energy Claimant Full Discontinued Inc. and others v. Republic of Panama ARB/06/19 (Nations) 49. RSM Production Claimant Full (e) Failure to state reasons N Annulment rejected Corporation v. Central African French (excerpts) Republic (e) Contradictory reasons N ARB/07/02 (RSM v. Central African Republic) 50. Tza Yap Shum v. Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Republic of Peru Spanish (b) Failure to apply proper law N ARB/07/6 (d) Right to be heard N (Shum) (d) Treatment of evidence N (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N 18 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 51. Toto Costruzioni Claimant Full Discontinued Generali S.p.A. v. Republic of Lebanon ARB/07/12 (Toto) 52. Ron Fuchs v. Respondent Full Discontinued Georgia ARB/07/15 (Fuchs) 53. Impregilo S.p.A v. Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Argentine Republic (b) Failure to apply proper law N English ARB/07/17 (d) Right to be heard N Spanish (d) Treatment of evidence N (Impregilo) (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 54. AES Summit Claimants Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Generation Limited and AES- (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Tisza Erömü Kft. 19 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* v. Republic of (e) Failure to state reasons N Hungary (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N ARB/07/22 (AES Summit) (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to deal with questions N 55. SGS Société Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Générale de Surveillance S.A. English v. Republic of (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N Paraguay (e) Contradictory reasons N ARB/07/29 (SGS v. Paraguay) 56. Astaldi S.p.A. v. Respondent Not Specified Discontinued Republic of Honduras Spanish ARB/07/32 (Astaldi) 20 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 57. ATA Construction, Respondent Partial Discontinued Industrial and Trading Company English v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ARB/08/2 (ATA) 58. Caratube Claimant Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected International Oil Company v. (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Republic of Kazakhstan (d) Right to be heard N (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/08/12 (d) Burden of proof N (Caratube) (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N 59. Alapli Electrik Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected B.V. v. Republic of Turkey (b) Failure to apply proper law N English ARB/08/13 (d) Failure to deal with questions N (Alapli) (d) Failure to decide by a majority N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 21 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* 60. Malicorp Limited Claimant Full (b) Failure to apply proper law N Annulment rejected v. Arab Republic of Egypt (d) Right to be heard/Inequality of N English treatment ARB/08/18 (d) Treatment of evidence N French (Malicorp) (e) Contradictory reasons N 61. Karmer Marble Respondent Partial Discontinued Tourism Construction Industry and Commerce Limited Liability Company v. Georgia ARB/08/19 (Karmer) 62. Elsamex, S.A. v. Respondent Full Discontinued Republic of Honduras Spanish ARB/09/04 (Elsamex) 63. Iberdrola Energia Claimant Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala (b) Failure to apply proper law N Spanish 22 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* (d) Failure to deal with questions N ARB/09/5 (d) Right to be heard N (Iberdrola) (d) Lack of due process N (e) Failure to state reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 64. KT Asia Claimant Full Discontinued Investment Group B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan ARB/09/8 (KT Asia) 65. Adem Dogan v. Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected Turkmenistan (b) Failure to apply proper law N English ARB/09/9 (Dogan) (b) Burden of proof / Treatment of N evidence (d) Burden of proof N (d) Right to be heard N (d) Inequality of treatment N 23 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (e) Contradictory reasons N 66. Commerce Group Claimants Full Discontinued Corp. and San Sebastian Gold Order of Mines v. Republic Discontinuance of El Salvador English ARB/09/17 (Commerce Group) 67. Kilıç İnşaat İthalat Claimant Full (b) Non-exercise of jurisdiction N Annulment Rejected İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim (b) Contradictory reasons N English Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (b) Failure to apply proper law N ARB/10/1 (b) Burden of Proof/ Treatment of N evidence (Kilıç) (d) Inequality of treatment N (d) Burden of Proof/ Treatment of N evidence (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N 24 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* Burden of Proof/ Treatment of N evidence (e) 68. Antoine Abou Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment Rejected Lahoud and Leila Bounafeh-Abou (b) Failure to apply proper law N French Lahoud v. (e) Contradictory reasons N Democratic Republic of the (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N Congo ARB/10/4 (Lahoud) 69. Renée Rose Levy Claimant Partial Discontinued de Levi v. Republic of Peru ARB/10/17 (Levy de Levi) 70. TECO Guatemala Respondent Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulled in part Holdings LLC v. Republic of (b) Failure to apply proper law N English Guatemala (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/10/23 (e) Insufficient and/or inadequate reasons N (TECO) 25 Annex 2 Annulment Grounds in Concluded Proceedings Request for Ground Invoked: Case Ground Invoked: Applicant Full or Partial Article 52(1) Upheld Outcome (Short Title) Description Annulment (a)-(e)* (e) Contradictory reasons N Claimant Partial (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction Not addressed (d) Burden of proof/ Treatment of Not evidence addressed (d) Right to be heard Y (d) Inequality of treatment Not addressed (e) Contradictory reasons N (e) Failure to address evidence Y 71. Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Claimant Full Discontinued Republic of Indonesia ARB/11/13 (Rizvi) 72. Tulip Real Estate Claimants Full (b) Lack or excess of jurisdiction N Annulment rejected and Development Netherlands B.V. (d) Right to be heard N English v. Republic of Turkey (d) Treatment of evidence N ARB/11/28 (d) Inequality of treatment N (Tulip) (e) Contradictory reasons N 26 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Aggirrezabalaga, Iñigo Límites de la función de los Comités ad hoc en el marco de los recursos de anulación del Arbitraje: Revista Vol. III, No. 2, 2010 Iruretagoiena Convenio del CIADI (M.C.I. Power Group L.C. y New Turbine Inc. c. República de de Arbitraje p. 485 Ecuador, Caso CIADI No. ARB/03/6) Comercial y de Inversiones Alexandrov, Stanimir A. The Vivendi Annulment Decision and the Lessons for Future ICSID Arbitrations – The p. 97 2004 Applicant’s Perspective, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Alvarez Avila, Gabriela ICSID Annulment Procedure: A Balancing Exercise Between Correctness and Finality, in p. 289 2011 Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, ICCA Congress Series No. 15 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International) Alvarez, Henri C. Setting Aside Additional Facility Awards: the Metalclad Case, in Annulment of ICSID p. 267 2004 Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto The Interpretation of Necessity Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties After the Recent p. 419 2012 ICSID Annulment Decisions, in Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2010– 2011 (Karl P. Sauvant ed., Oxford University Press) Aronson, Benjamin M. A New Framework for ICSID Annulment Jurisprudence: Rethinking the “Three Vienna Journal on Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Generations” International p. 3 Constitutional Law Balaš, Vladimir Review of Awards, in The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Peter p. 1125 2008 Muchlinski et al. eds., Oxford University Press) Banifatemi, Yas Defending Investment Treaty Awards: Is There an ICSID Advantage?, in 50 Years of the p. 318 2009 New York Convention: ICCA International Commercial Arbitration Conference, ICCA Congress Series No. 14 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International) Ben Hamida, Walid Two Nebulous ICSID Features: The Notion of Investment and the Scope of Annulment Journal of Vol. 24, No. 3, 2007 Control – Ad Hoc Committee’s Decision in Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of International p. 287 Congo Arbitration 1 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Berman, Franklin Review of the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction in ICSID Arbitration, in The Review of p. 253 2010 International Arbitral Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n° 6 (Emmanuel Gaillard ed., JurisNet) Bernasconi-Osterwalder, ICSID’s Annulment Decision in Impregilo v. Argentina: Finality of Awards v. Legal IISD Investment Vol. 5, No. 1 2014 Nathalie Correctness Treaty News Bernardini, Piero ICSID Versus Non-ICSID Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Liber Amicorum Bernardo p. 159 2010 Cremades (Miguel Ángel Fernández-Ballesteros and David Arias eds., La Ley) Bishop, R. Doak, and Annulment under the ICSID Convention (Oxford University Press) 2012 Silvia M. Marchili Bjorklund, Andrea K. The Continuing Appeal of Annulment? Lessons from Amco Asia and CME, in International p. 471 2005 Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Todd Weiler ed., Cameron May Ltd.) Blackaby, Nigel, et al. Challenge of Arbitral Awards, in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Alan p. 569 2015 Redfern et al. eds., 6th ed. Oxford University Press) Blackaby, Nigel, et al. Challenge of Arbitral Awards, in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Alan p. 585 2009 Redfern et al. eds., 5th ed. Oxford University Press) Blyschak, Paul Michael State Consent, Investor Interests and the Future of Investment Arbitration: Reanalyzing the Asper Review of Vol. 9, No. 1, 2009 Jurisdiction of Investor-State Tribunals in Hard Cases International p. 99 Business and Trade Law Blome, Matthew Contractual waiver of Article 52 ICSID: a solution to the concerns with annulment? Arbitration 2016 International Bohmer, Lisa M. Finality in ICSID Arbitration Revisited ICSID Review— Vol. 31, No. 1 2016 Foreign Investment Law Journal Bondar, Kateryna Annulment of ICSID and Non-ICSID Investment Awards: Differences in the Extent of Journal of Vol. 32, No. 6, 2015 Review International p. 621 Arbitration 2 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Born, Gary B. Annulment and Revision of International Arbitral Awards, in International Arbitration: p. 1047 2011 Cases and Materials (Gary B. Born ed., Kluwer Law International) Born, Gary B. Annulment of International Arbitral Awards, in International Commercial Arbitration (Gary Vol. II, p. 2551 2009 B. Born, Kluwer Law International) Born, Gary B. Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards – Suspension of Proceedings Vol. II, p. 2701 2009 Pending Resolution of Application to Annul Award, in International Commercial Arbitration (Gary B. Born, Kluwer Law International) Branson, David J. Annulments of “Final” ICSID Awards Raise Questions about the Process National Law p. 25 Aug. 4, Journal 1986 Broches, Aron Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other Vol. XVIII, 1993 States of 1965, in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer p. 627 Law International) Broches, Aron On the Finality of Awards: A Reply to Michael Reisman ICSID Review— Vol. 8, No. 1, 1993 Foreign Investment p. 92 Law Journal Broches, Aron Observations on the Finality of ICSID Awards ICSID Review— Vol. 6, No. 2, 1991 Foreign Investment p. 321 Law Journal Broches, Aron Awards Rendered Pursuant to the ICSID Convention: Binding Force, Finality, Recognition, ICSID Review— Vol. 2, No. 2, 1987 Enforcement, Execution Foreign Investment p. 287 Law Journal Broches, Aron The Experience of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, in p. 75 1985 International Investment Disputes: Avoidance and Settlement (Seymour J. Rubin and Richard W. Nelson eds., West Publishing) Brower, Charles N., The Saga of CMS, Res Judicata, and the Legitimacy of ICSID Arbitration, in International p. 843 2009 Michael Ottolenghi, and Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Christina Peter Prows Binder et al. eds., Oxford University Press) 3 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Brower, Charles N. Ibrahim Shihata and the Resolution of International Investment Disputes: The Masterful Studies in Vol. 31, p. 79 1999 Missionary Transnational Legal Policy Buckley, Ross P Now We Have come to the ICSID Party: Are its Awards Final and Enforceable? Sydney Law Vol. 14, No. 3, 1992 Review p. 359 Burgstaller, Markus, and Challenging International Arbitral Awards: To ICSID or not to ICSID? Arbitration Vol. 27, No. 1, 2011 Charles B. Rosenberg International p. 91 Burke-White, William, et Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Yale Journal of Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 al. Arbitrations International Law p. 283 Burke-White, William The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITS and the Legitimacy of the ICSID Asian World Trade Vol. 3, p. 199 2008 System Organization and International Health Law and Policy Caron, David D. Framing the Work of ICSID Annulment Committees World Arbitration Vol. 6, No. 2, and Mediation 2012 pp. 173-199 Review Caron, David D. Reputation and Reality in the ICSID Annulment Process: Understanding the Distinction ICSID Review— Vol. 7, No. 1, 1992 Between Annulment and Appeal Foreign Investment p. 21 Law Journal Cheng, Tai-Heng The Role of Justice in Annulling Investor-State Arbitration Awards Berkeley Journal of Vol. 31, No. 1, 2013 International Law p. 236 Cheng, Tai-Heng and Practical Measures to Control Annulments in Investor-State Arbitration Awards New York Law Vol. 248, p. S8 2012 Lucas Bento Journal Cheng, Tai-Heng, et al. Reasons and Reasoning in Investment Treaty Arbitration Suffolk Vol. 32, No. 2, 2009 Transnational Law p. 409 Review 4 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Clapham, Jason Finality of Investor-State Arbitral Awards: Has the Tide Turned and is there a Need for Journal of Vol. 26, No. 3, 2009 Reform? International p. 437 Arbitration Collins, David ICSID Annulment Committee Appointments: Too Much Discretion for the Chairman? Journal of Vol. 30, No. 4, 2013 International pp. 333-343 Arbitration Committee on International Report: Recommended Procedures for Recognition and Enforcement of International ICSID Review— Vol. 27, No. 1, 2012 Commercial Disputes of the Arbitration Awards Rendered under the ICSID Convention Foreign Investment p. 207 New York City Bar Journal Association Cordero Arce, Gonzalo Anulación de laudos arbitrales en el CIADI Revista Chilena de Vol. 32, No. 2, 2005 Derecho p. 219 Craig, William L. The Final Chapter in the Pyramids Case: Discounting an ICSID Award for Annulment Risk ICSID Review— Vol. 8, No. 2, 1993 Foreign Investment p. 264 Journal Craig, William L. Uses and Abuses of Appeal from Awards Arbitration Vol. 4. No. 3, 1988 International p. 174 Cremades, Bernardo M. Litigating Annulment Proceedings – The Vivendi Matter: Contract and Treaty Claims, in p. 87 2004 Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Cristani, Federica The “Sempra” Annulment Decision of 29 June 2010 and Subsequent Developments in International Vol. 15, No. 2, 2013 Investment Arbitration Dealing with the Necessity Defence Community Law p. 237 Review Crivellaro, Antonio The Failure to State Reasons in ICSID Awards Les Cahiers de Vol. 4, p. 865 2012 l’Arbitrage Crivellaro, Antonio Annulment of ICSID Awards: Back to the “First Generation”?, in Liber Amicorum – p. 145 2011 Mélanges en l’Honneur de Serge Lazareff (Laurent Lévy and Yves Derains eds., Pedone) Crivellaro, Antonio Actualité du contrôle des sentences arbitrales CIRDI, in La procédure arbitrale relative aux p. 221 2010 investissements internationaux: Aspects récents (Charles Leben ed., Anthemis) 5 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Crivellaro, Antonio The Arbitrator’s Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Is it a Per Se Ground for p. 309 2010 Annulling the Award?, in Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (Miguel Ángel Fernández- Ballesteros and David Arias eds., La Ley) Crook, John R. Case Summary: CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ICSID Review— Vol. 22, No. 2, 2007 ARB/01/08) (Annulment Decision, September 25, 2007) Foreign Investment p. 455 Law Journal Curtis, Christopher T. International Investment Disputes – Res Judicata Effect of Partially Annulled ICSID Award American Journal Vol. 83, No. 1, 1989 of International p. 106 Law Daly, Brooks, and Fedelma Comment on the differing legal frameworks of investment treaty arbitration and commercial p. 151 2009 Claire Smith arbitration as seen through precedent, annulment, and procedural rules, in 50 Years of the New York Convention (A.J. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International) De Berranger, Thibaut L’article 52 de la Convention de Washington du 18 mars 1965 et les premiers Revue de No. 1, p. 93 1988 enseignements de sa pratique l’Arbitrage Delaume, Georges R. Reflections on the Effectiveness of International Arbitral Awards Journal of Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995 International p. 5 Arbitration Delaume, Georges R. The Pyramids Stand – The Pharaohs Can Rest in Peace ICSID Review— Vol. 8, No. 2, 1993 Foreign Investment p. 231 Law Journal Delaume, Georges R. The Finality of Arbitration Involving States: Recent Developments Arbitration Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989 International p. 21 Demirkol, Berk Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitration Agreements and Awards in ICSID Review— Vol. 30, No. 1, 2015 Investment Treaty Arbitration Foreign Investment pp. 56-77 Law Journal Derains, Yves La tentación pedagógica de algunos Comités de anulación del CIADI, in Sistema de p. 11 2011 Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) 6 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Diel-Gligor, Katharina Systemic Deficiencies of ICSID Investment Arbitration? : an Inspection of the Annulment p. 359 2013 Mechanism: Paper, in International dispute settlement: room for innovations? (Rüdiger Wolfrum and Ina Gätzschmann, eds.) Di Rosa, Paolo Consideraciones sobre el predominio de la “extralimitación manifiesta de facultades” p. 19 2011 versus la “falta de motivación del laudo” como causal de anulación de laudos CIADI, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Dong, Wang Post-Award Remedies and Procedures, in Dispute Settlement: International Centre for the Available at 2003 Settlement of Investment Disputes (United Nations) http://unctad.org/e n/docs/edmmisc23 2add7_en.pdf Dugan, Christopher F., et Annulment and Set Aside, in Investor-State Arbitration (Christopher F. Dugan et al., Oxford p. 627 2008 al. University Press) El-Kosheri, Ahmed S. Reflections on the ICSID Annulment Decision Rendered in the Fraport/Philippines Case, in p. 996 2011 Grenzen überwinden - Prinzipien bewahren / Herbert Kronke and Karsten Thorn eds., Gieseking) El-Kosheri, Ahmed S. Review of ICSID Awards Based on a Manifest Excess of Powers, in The Review of p. 265 2010 International Arbitral Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n° 6 (Emmanuel Gaillard ed., JurisNet) El-Kosheri, Ahmed S. The Klöckner Case and the Finality of ICSID Arbitral Awards, in Liber Amicorum p. 103 1998 Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern in Honour of His 80th Birthday (Gerhard Hafner et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Escobar, Alejandro A., and La decisión de anulación en el caso Iberdrola Energía, SA c República de Guatemala: ICSID Review— Vol. 31, No. 1, 2016 Ernesto J. Féliz De Jesús Alcance del estándar aplicable a causales de anulación bajo el Convenio del CIADI Foreign Investment p. 104 Law Journal Escobar, Alejandro A. Introductory Note: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): International Legal Vol. 47, No. 3, 2008 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Materials p. 445 Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award 7 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Evseev, Dmitri Living with Indeterminacy: A Practical Approach to ICSID Annulment Reasoning, in Vol. 2, p. 177 2009 Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Ian A. Laird and Todd J. Weiler eds., JurisNet) Feldman, Mark B. The Annulment Proceedings and the Finality of ICSID Arbitral Awards ICSID Review— Vol. 2, No. 1, 1987 Foreign Investment p. 85 Law Journal Fernández Rozas, José Dogmática del recurso de anulación ante el CIADI, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos p. 31 2011 Carlos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Fernández-Armesto, Juan Different Systems for the Annulment of Investment Awards ICSID Review— Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011 Foreign Investment p. 128 Law Journal Fernando, Anthony F.T. The Requirement to Provide a Bank Guarantee in Return for a Continuation of the Transnational No. 1 2005 Provisional Stay of Enforcement of the Award under Article 52(5) of the ICSID Convention Dispute – Can This Be Justified? Management: Fouret, Julien (ed.) Enforcement of Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards: A Global Guide (Globe Law and 2015 Business) Fouret, Julien Stay(ing) on Track or Falling off the Edge: The Absence of Legal Security in the Ad Hoc ICSID Review— Vol. 27, No. 2, 2012 Committees’ Decisions under Article 52(5) of the ICSID Convention Foreign Investment pp. 303-334 Law Journal Fouret, Julien, and Dany International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Case Law Review The Law and Vol. 11, No. 1, 2012 Khayat Practice of p. 137 International Courts and Tribunals Fouret, Julien, and Dany Le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements Revue québécoise Vols. 2–11 2002– Khayat de droit 2011 international Fouret, Julien, and Dany Recueil des commentaires des décisions du CIRDI : (2002–2007) (Bruylant) 2009 Khayat 8 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Franck, Susan D. The ICSID Effect? Considering Potential Variations in Arbitration Awards Virginia Journal of Vol. 51, No. 4, 2010– International Law p. 825 2011 Franck, Susan D. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Fordham Law Vol. 73, No. 4, 2005 Law Through Inconsistent Decisions Review p. 1521 Friedland, Paul D. Stay of Enforcement of the Arbitral Award Pending ICSID Annulment Proceedings, in p. 177 2004 Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Friedland, Paul D., and Rabid Redux: The Second Wave of Abusive ICSID Annulments American Vol. 27, p. 727 2012 Paul Brumpton University International Law Review Frutos-Peterson, Claudia Case Summary: Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), ICSID Review— Vol. 23, No. 1, 2008 Annulment Proceeding – Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay Foreign Investment p. 155 of Enforcement of the Award Law Journal Frutos-Peterson, Claudia Case Summary: Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic ICSID Review— Vol. 23, No. 1, 2008 (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3), Annulment Proceeding – Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Foreign Investment p. 164 Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award Law Journal Fuentes, Ximena, and Annulment proceedings in cases involving Latin American countries – Procesos de p. 229 2016 Johanna Klein Kranenberg anulación en casos relacionados a países latinoamericanos, in International Investment Law in Latin America: Problems and Prospects / Derecho Internacional de las Inversiones en América Latina: Problemas y Perspectivas (Attila Tanzi, Alessandra Asteriti, Rodrigo Polanco Lazo and Paolo Turrini eds., Brill Nijhoff) Gaillard, Emmanuel Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) – Journal du Droit p. 499 2010 Chronique des sentence arbitrales International Gaillard, Emmanuel Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) – Journal du Droit p. 311 2008 Chronique des sentence arbitrales International Gaillard, Emmanuel La Jurisprudence du CIRDI (2004-2008) (Pedone) Vol. II 2008 Gaillard, Emmanuel La Jurisprudence du CIRDI (Pedone) Vol. I 2004 9 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Gaillard, Emmanuel The Extent of Review of the Applicable Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Annulment p. 223 2004 of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute 2004) Gaillard, Emmanuel L’arbitrage sur le fondement des traités de protection des investissements Revue de No. 3, p. 853 2003 l’Arbitrage Gaillard, Emmanuel Landmark in ICSID Arbitration: Committee Decision in Wena Hotels New York Law Vol. 227, p. 3 Apr. 4, Journal 2002 Gaillard, Emmanuel Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) – Journal du Droit p. 135 1987 Chronique des sentences arbitrales International Gaillard, Emmanuel Introductory Note: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Decision of International Legal Vol. 25, p. 1986 Ad hoc Committee on Annulment of Arbitral Award in Amco Asia Corporation et al. v. Materials 1439 Indonesia Garcia-Bolivar, Omar E. Protected Investments and Protected Investors: The Outer Limits of ICSID’s Reach Trade, Law, and Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010 Development p. 145 Garibaldi, Oscar M., et al. La anulación de los laudos en los casos Sempra y Enron, in Sistema de Anulación de los p. 62 2011 Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Gazzini, Tarciso Necessity in International Investment Law: Some Critical Remarks on CMS v. Argentina Journal of Energy Vol. 26, No. 3, 2008 and Natural p. 450 Resources Law Giannakopoulos, Reconceptualizing “Failure to State Reasons” as a Ground for Annulment under Article Journal of 2015 Charalampos 52(1)(e) of the ICSID Convention International Dispute Settlement Giardina, Andrea ICSID: A Self-Contained, Non-National Review System, in International Arbitration in the p. 199 1994 21 Century: Towards ‘Judicialization’ and Uniformity? (Richard B. Lillich and Charles N. Brower eds., Hotei) Giardina, Andrea L’exécution des sentences du Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs Revue critique de Vol. 71, No. 2, 1982 aux investissements droit international p. 273 privé 10 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Godfrey, Jenna M. Introductory Note: Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ICSID Review— Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011 ARB/00/6) (Annulment Proceeding), Décision du Comité ad hoc sur la demande Foreign Investment p. 184 d’annulation du Consortium R.F.C.C. (18 janvier 2006) Law Journal Gouiffes, Laurent Annulment of ICSID awards : adjustment variables and flexibility of ad hoc committees, in p. 275 2013 The future of ICSID and the place of investment treaties in international law (N. Jansen Calamita, David Earnest, and Markus Burgstaller, eds., British Institute of International and Comparative Law) Gouiffes, Laurent, and Anulación de los laudos CIADI. Variables de ajuste y margen de maniobra de los Comités p. 47 2011 Melissa Ordoñez ad hoc, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Guillaume, Gilbert Failure to State Reasons in ICSID Awards, in The Review of International Arbitral Awards, p. 271 2010 IAI series on international arbitration n° 6 (Emmanuel Gaillard ed., JurisNet) Hamamoto, Shotaro New Challenges for the ICSID Annulment System: another Private-public Problem in the p. 393 2013 International Investment Dispute Settlement: Paper, in International dispute settlement: room for innovations? (Rüdiger Wolfrum and Ina Gätzschmann, eds.) Honlet, Jean-Christophe, ICSID Annulment, in International Investment Law (Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, p. 1431 2015 Barton Legum, and Anna Stephan Hobe, August Reinisch, Yun-i Kim eds., International Investment Law Centre Crevon Cologne, Universität Wien) Honlet, Jean-Christophe, The Decision of the ICSID Ad Hoc Committee in CMS v. Argentina Regarding the The Law and Vol. 7, No. 1, 2008 and Guillaume Borg Conditions of Application of an Umbrella Clause: SGS v. Philippines Revisited Practice of p. 1 International Courts and Tribunals ICSID Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration ICSID Secretariat Oct. 22, Discussion Paper, 2004 available at http://icsid.worldba nk.org ICSID History of the ICSID Convention: Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of Vols. I–IV 1970 the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) 11 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Jagusch, Stephen, et al. A Comparison of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration: Areas of Divergence and Concern, in p. 79 2010 The Backlash against Investment Arbitration (Michael Waibel et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Jaime Ramírez, Margie- Reflexiones en torno a la ley aplicable en el sistema de anulación del CIADI: Entre treaty p. 79 2011 Lys claims y contract claims, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Johnson, Lise Annulment of ICSID Awards: Recent Developments International 2011 Institute for Sustainable Development, available at http://www.iisd.org /pdf/2011/dci_201 0_annulment_icsid _awards.pdf Johnson, Thomas Factual Review, in Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues Vol. 1 (Federico Ortino et al. p. 59 2006 eds., British Institute of International and Comparative Law) Júdice, José Miguel, and La anulación de sentencias CIADI: ¿Corregir las sentencias o corregir las tendencias?, in p. 99 2011 Tiago Duarte Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Kahn, Philippe Le contrôle des sentences arbitrales rendues par un Tribunal CIRDI, in La juridiction p. 363 1986 internationale permanente (Société française pour le Droit International, Colloque de Lyon) Kalnina, Ieva, and The Scope of ICSID Review: Remarks on Selected Problematic Issues of ICSID Decisions, p. 223 2009 Domenico Di Pietro in International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Christina Binder et al. eds., Oxford University Press) Karamanian, Susan L. Case Comment: Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. & Vivendi Universal S.A. v. American Journal Vol. 105, No. 2011 Argentine Republic of International 3, p. 553 Law 12 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Kaufmann-Kohler, La anulación de los laudos arbitrales del CIADI en arbitrajes de contratos y tratados: p. 122 2011 Gabrielle ¿Existen diferencias?, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Kaufmann-Kohler, Annulment of ICSID Awards in Contract and Treaty Arbitrations: Are there Differences?, in p. 189 2004 Gabrielle Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Khayat, Dany Case Summary: Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. v. Republic of ICSID Review— Vol. 23, No. 2, 2008 Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4) (Annulment Decision, September 5, 2007) Foreign Investment p. 324 Law Journal Kim, Dohyun The Annulment Committee’s Role in Multiplying Inconsistency in ICSID Arbitration: The New York Vol. 86, No. 1, 2010 Need to Move Away from an Annulment-Based System University Law p. 242 Review Knahr, Christina Annulment and its Role in the Context of Conflicting Awards, in The Backlash against p. 151 2010 Investment Arbitration (Michael Waibel et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Knieper, Rolf Contradictions between the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Arbitration Rules with p. 325 2012 Respect to the Suspension of Enforcement in Annulment Proceedings, in Europäische und internationale Dimension des Rechts – Festschrift für Daphne-Ariane Simotta (Reinhold Geimer et al. eds., LexisNexis) Kurtz, Jürgen T. ICSID Annulment Committee Rules on the Relationship between Customary and Treaty ASIL Insights, Vol. 11, No. Dec. 20, Exceptions on Necessity in Situations of Financial Crisis International 30 2007 Economic and Law Edition, available at http://www.asil.org /insights071220.cf m Lalive, Pierre On the Reasoning of International Arbitral Awards Journal of Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 International p. 55 Dispute Settlement 13 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Lalive, Pierre Concluding Remarks, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international p. 297 2004 arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Lalonde, Marc The Post-arbitral Phase in North American and Western Europe, in International p. 127 1994 Arbitration in a Changing World, ICCA Congress Series No. 6 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International) Lamm, Carolyn B., The two annulment decisions in Amco Asia and 'non-application' of applicable law by p. 689 2015 Eckhard R. Hellbeck, and ICSID tribunals, in Practising virtue : inside international arbitration (David D. Caron, David P. Riesenberg Stephan Schill, Abby Cohen Smutny, and Epaminontas E. Triantafilou eds., Oxford University Press) Lamm, Carolyn B., The New Frontier of Investor-State Arbitration : Annulment of NAFTA Awards International Vol. 11, No. 1, 2008 Hellbeck, Eckhard R., and Arbitration Law p. 58 Giorgetti, Chiara Review Le Cannu, Paul-Jean Introductory Note : Compagnie D’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonias v. ICSID Review— Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011 Gabonese Republic, Décision du Comité ad hoc sur la demande d’annulation de la Foreign Investment p. 153 République Gabonaise (11 mai 2010) Law Journal Leigh, Monroe Arbitration – Annulment of Arbitral Awards for Failure to Apply Law Applicable under American Journal Vol. 81, No. 1, 1987 ICSID Convention and Failure to State Sufficiently Pertinent Reasons of International p. 222 Law Lin, Tsai-Yu Systemic Reflections on Argentina’s Non-Compliance with ICSID Arbitral Awards: A New Contemporary Asia Vol. 5, No. 1, 2012 Role of the Annulment Committee at Enforcement? Arbitration Journal pp. 1–22 Magdaleno Carmona, Algunas cuestiones de interés respecto a la anulación de los laudos CIADI, in Sistema de p. 163 2011 Antonia Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Manciaux, Sébastien Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) – Journal du Droit p. 565 2011 Chronique des sentence arbitrales International Manciaux, Sébastien L’exécution provisoire des sentences arbitrales CIRDI pendant une procédure d’annulation La Gazette du p. 24 2005 Palais 14 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Marboe, Irmgard Annulment of ICSID Awards, in Investment and Commercial Arbitration: Similarities and p. 97 2010 Divergences (Christina Knahr et al. eds., Eleven International) Marboe, Irmgard Introductory Note: Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentina (ICSID) International Legal Vol. 49, No. 5, 2010 Materials p. 1441 Marboe, Irmgard ICSID Annulment Decisions: Three Generations Revisited, in International Investment Law p. 200 2009 for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Christina Binder et al. eds., Oxford University Press) Marchili, Silvia M. ICSID Annulment: A Saga of Virtue and Vice, in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Vol. 5, p. 283 2012 International Law (Ian A. Laird and Todd J. Weiler eds., JurisNet) Marzorati, Osvaldo J. El recurso de anulación en el CIADI y el estado de necesidad en los casos argentinos, in p. 173 2011 Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Maupin, Julie A. The Awards in Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, in The Reasons p. 231 2008 Requirement in International Investment Arbitration: Critical Case Studies (W. Michael Reisman and Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez eds., Martinus Nijhoff) Mayer, Pierre To What Extent Can an Ad Hoc Committee Review the Factual Findings of an Arbitral p. 243 2004 Tribunal, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute 2004) Mezgravis, Andrés A., and La proliferación de la nulidad de los laudos: Una falla del CIADI que sí puede ser p. 141 2011 Carolina González corregida, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Mistelis, Loukas A. Washington/ICSID Convention, 1965 – Interpretation, Revision and Annulment of the p. 131 2010 Award: Article 52 [Annulment], in Concise International Arbitration (Loukas A. Mistelis ed., Kluwer Law International) Mullen, Stephanie, and Quantum, annulment and the requirement to give reasons: analysis and reform Arbitration Vol. 32, No. 1, 2016 Elizabeth Whitsitt International p. 59 Nelson, Timothy G. Annulment of International Arbitration Awards, The Orinoco Steamship Case Sails On ASA Bulletin Vol. 28, No. 2, 2010 p. 205 15 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Newcombe, Andrew Introductory Note: ICSID ad hoc Committee: Decision to Terminate Stay of Enforcement of International Legal Vol. 48, No. 6, 2009 Arbitral Award in Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic Materials p. 1448 Padilla, Sabino B., IV Some Available Options to Save the Viability of ICSID Arbitration in the Light of the Philippine Law Vol. 63, No. 3, 1988 Annulment Awards in Klöckner v. Cameroon and Amco Asia v. Republic of Indonesia Journal p. 321 Parra, Antonio R., and The Merits, the Award and Annulment – The Award and its Aftermath – Act IV, Scene II Arbitration Vol. 24, No. 1, 2008 Mark Baker International p. 97 Paulsson, Jan Avoiding Unintended Consequences, in Appeals Mechanism in International Investment p. 241 2008 Disputes (Karl P. Sauvant and Michael Chiswick-Patterson eds., Oxford University Press) Paulsson, Jan ICSID’s Achievements and Prospects ICSID Review— Vol. 6, No. 2, 1991 Foreign Investment p. 380 Law Journal Penusliski, Ilija Mitrev A Dispute Systems Design Diagnosis of ICSID, in The Backlash against Investment p. 507 2010 Arbitration (Michael Waibel et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Pérez Pacheco, Yaritza, and Recurso de anulación contra laudos CIADI: ¿Refuerza la autonomía del sistema o contraría p. 201 2011 Elizabeth Méndez Salom la celeridad del arbitraje internacional?, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Perret, François Quelques considérations à propos de la motivation des sentences arbitrales en matière ASA Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 2011 d’arbitrage international à la lumière d’une jurisprudence récente du Tribunal Fédéral 3., p. 666 Pinsolle, Philippe “Manifest” Excess of Powers and Jurisdictional Review of ICSID Awards, in Investment p. 51 2006 Treaty Law: Current Issues Vol. 1 (Federico Ortino et al. eds., British Institute of International and Comparative Law) Pinsolle, Philippe Jurisdictional Review of ICSID Awards Journal of World Vol. 5, No. 4, 2004 Investment p. 613 Pinsolle, Philippe The Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards Journal of World Vol. 1, p. 243 2000 Investment Pirrwitz, Björn Annulment of Arbitral Awards Under Article 52 of the Washington Convention on the Texas International Vol. 23, No. 1, 1988 Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States Law Journal p. 73 16 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Polasek, Martina Introductory Note to Three Decisions on the Stay of Enforcement of an ICSID Award ICSID Review— Vol. 20, No. 2, 2005 Foreign Investment p. 581 Law Journal Racine, Jean-Babtiste La sentence d’incompétence Revue de No. 4, p. 729 2010 l’Arbitrage Rajput, Aniruddha AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v Hungary: The Scope of ad hoc ICSID Review— Vol. 28, No. 2, 2013 Committee Review for Manifest Excess of Powers and Failure to State Reasons Foreign Investment p. 273 Law Journal Rambaud, Patrick De la compétence du tribunal C.I.R.D.I. saisi après une décision d’annulation Annuaire français Vol. 34, p. 209 1988 de droit international Rambaud, Patrick L’annulation des sentences Klöckner et Amco Annuaire français Vol. 32, p. 259 1986 de droit international Redfern, Alan D. ICSID – Losing its Appeal? Arbitration Vol. 3, No. 2, 1987 International p. 98 Reed, Lucy, and Giorgio F. Ad hoc or ad arbitrium? An audit of Recent Annulment Decisions, in Contemporary Issues 2012 Mandelli in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2011 (Arthur W. Rovine ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) Reed, Lucy, et al. Recognition, Enforcement, and Execution of ICSID Awards, in Guide to ICSID Arbitration p. 179 2010 (2d ed., Kluwer Law International) Reed, Lucy, et al. The ICSID Review Regime, in Guide to ICSID Arbitration (2d ed., Kluwer Law p. 159 2010 International) Reinisch, August The Role of Precedent in ICSID Arbitration, in Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2008 p. 495 2008 (Christian Klausegger et al. eds., C.H. Beck, Stämpfli & Manz) Reisman, W. Michael Reflections on the Control Mechanism of the ICSID System, in The Review of International p. 197 2010 Arbitral Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n° 6 (Emmanuel Gaillard ed., JurisNet) 17 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Reisman, W. Michael Repairing ICSID’s Control System: Some Comments on Aron Broches’ “Observations on ICSID Review— Vol. 7, No. 1, 1996 the Finality of ICSID Awards” Foreign Investment p. 196 Law Journal Reisman, W. Michael Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration: Breakdown and Repair 1992 (Duke University Press) Reisman, W. Michael The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in ICSID Arbitration Duke Law Journal No. 4, p. 739 1989 Rodríguez-Sastre, Iñigo, Puntos débiles del vigente sistema de anulación de laudos CIADI: Necesaria reforma del p. 227 2011 and Elena Sevila órgano decisor de la anulación y de los requisitos de suspensión de la ejecución de laudos, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Salvati, Pierluigi Con commento - International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Washington, Diritto comunitario Vol. 49, No. 4, 2010 D.C. - Decision on the application for annulment - April 16, 2009 - ICSID Case No. e degli scambi p. 721 ARB/05/10 - Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd (Applicant) v. The Government of internazionali Malaysia (Respondent) Salomon, Claudia, and Options for Change in the Annulment Process Global Arbitration Vol. 2, No. 1 2007 Kate Knox Review Samra, Harout Five Years Later: The CMS Award Placed in the Context of the Argentine Financial Crisis University of Vol. 38, No. 3, 2006– and the ICSID Arbitration Boom Miami Inter- p. 667 2007 American Law Review Santiago Tawil, Guido Binding Force and Enforcement of ICSID Awards: Untying Articles 53 and 54 of the ICSID p. 327 2009 Convention, in 50 Years of the New York Convention: ICCA International Arbitration Conference, ICCA Congress Series No. 14 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International) Savarese, Eduardo The Arbitral Practice of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Italian Yearbook of Vol. 17, p. 237 2007 (ICSID) in 2007 International Law Schatz, Sylvia The Effect of the Annulment Decisions in Amco v. Indonesia and Klöckner v. Cameroon on American Vol. 3, No. 2, 1988 the Future of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes University Journal p. 481 of International Law and Policy 18 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Scherer, Matthias ICSID Annulment Proceedings Based on Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Vol. I, p. 211 2011 Procedure, in The Relationship between Constitutional Values, Human Rights and Arbitration, Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration (Alexander J. Bělohlávek and Naděžda Rozehnalová eds., JurisNet) Schreuer, Christoph H. Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: Barely an ICSID Review— Vol. 29, No. 2, 2014 Annulment Foreign Investment pp. 321-327 Law Journal Schreuer, Christoph H. Why Still ICSID? Transnational No. 3 2012 Dispute Management Schreuer, Christoph H. From ICSID Annulment to Appeal, Half Way Down the Slippery Slope The Law and Vol. 10, No. 2, 2011 Practice of p. 211 International Courts and Tribunals Schreuer, Christoph H. ICSID Annulment Awards: The Fourth Generation? Global Arbitration Vol. 5, No. 5 2010 Review Schreuer, Christoph H., et Article 52 – Annulment, in The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2d ed., Cambridge p. 890 2009 al. University Press) Schreuer, Christoph H. Preliminary Rulings in Investment Arbitration, in Appeals Mechanism in International p. 207 2008 Investment Disputes (Karl P. Sauvant and Michael Chiswick-Patterson eds., Oxford University Press) Schreuer, Christoph H. Three Generations of ICSID Annulment Proceedings, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI p. 17 2004 series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Schreuer, Christoph H. ICSID Annulment Revisited Legal Issues of Vol. 30, No. 2, 2003 Economic p. 103 Integration 19 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Schreuer, Christoph H. Decisions Ex Aqeuo et Bono under the ICSID Convention ICSID Review— Vol. 11, No. 1, 1996 Foreign Investment p. 37 Law Journal Schuetz, Christina Cathey Legitimacy and Inconsistency: Is Investment Treaty Arbitration Broken and Can It Be Vol. 2, p. 259 2009 “Fixed”? – Is the ICSID Annulment Mechanism Broken and Could It Be Improved?, in Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Ian A. Laird and Todd J. Weiler eds., JurisNet) Schwartz, Eric A. Finality at What Cost? The Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee in Wena Hotels v. Egypt, in p. 43 2004 Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Sedlak, David R. ICSID’s Resurgence in International Investment Arbitration: Can the Momentum Hold? Penn State Vol. 23, No. 1, 2004– International Law p. 147 2005 Review Shihata, Ibrahim F.I., and The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ICSID Review— Vol. 14, No. 2, 1999 Antonio R. Parra Foreign Investment p. 299 Law Journal Shin, Hi-Taek Annulment, in Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Meg Kluwer Law p. 699 2015 Kinnear, Geraldine Fischer, Jara Minguez Almeida, Luisa Fernanda Torres, and Mairée International Uran Bidegain eds.) Silberman, Mallory ICSID Annulment Reform: Are We Looking at the Right Problem?, in Reshaping the Brill / Nijhoff p. 853 2015 Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century (Jean E. Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret eds.) Sinclair, Anthony C. Award-Creditor Security and a Continuing Stay of Enforcement in CDC Group plc v. Mealey’s Vol. 19, No. 9, 2004 Republic of the Seychelles International p. 35 Arbitration Report Smutny, Abby Cohen Procedural Review, in Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues Vol. 1 (Federico Ortino et al. p. 65 2006 eds., British Institute of International and Comparative Law) 20 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Solís, Tomás Decisiones recientes en casos de anulación en el CIADI. El caso de argentina y la p. 239 2011 consistencia en la jurisprudencia de anulación, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Steindl, Barbara Helene ICSID annulment vs. set aside by state courts: compared to ICSID “ad hoc” annulment Yearbook on Vol. 4, p. 150 2014 Committees, is it the state courts that are now more hesitant to set aside awards? International Arbitration Stevens, Margrete The Power of ICSID Ad Hoc Committees to Order Security When Granting a Stay of p. 113 2009 Enforcement, in Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against Sovereigns (R. Doak Bishop ed., JurisNet) Stockford, Claire Appeal versus Annulment: Is the ICSID Annulment Process Working or Is It Time for an Vol. 5, p. 307 2012 Appellate Mechanism, in Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Ian A. Laird and Todd J. Weiler eds., JurisNet) Sturzenegger, Marc ICSID Arbitration and Annulment for Failure to State Reasons: The Decision of the Ad Hoc Journal of Vol. 9, No. 4, 1992 Committee in Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. The Republic of Guinea International p. 173 Arbitration Suarez Anzorena, Carlos Vivendi v. Argentina: On the Admissibility of Requests for Partial Annulment and the p. 123 2004 Ignacio Ground of a Manifest Excess of Powers, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Szewczyk, Bart M. Case Comment: Sempra Energy International v. Argentina American Journal Vol. 105, No. 2011 of International 3, p. 547 Law Thompson, Dennis The Klöckner v. Cameroon Appeal: A Note on Jurisdiction Journal of Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 International p. 93 Arbitration Timmer, Laurens J.E. Manifest Excess of Powers as a Ground for the Annulment of ICSID Awards Journal of World Vol. 14, No. 5, 2013 Investment and p. 775 Trade 21 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Torterola, Ignacio Notas sobre el requerimiento de garantías como condición para la suspensión de la p. 257 2011 ejecución de laudos arbitrales del CIADI, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Trooboff, Peter D. To What Extent May an Ad Hoc Committee Review the Factual Findings of an Arbitral p. 251 2004 Tribunal Based on Procedural Error?, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, IAI series on international arbitration n°1 (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Trooboff, Peter D. International Investment Disputes - Res Judicata effect of Partially Annulled ICSID Awards American Journal Vol. 83, No. 1, 1989 of International p. 111 Law Tsolakidis, Nikolaos ICSID Annulment Standards: Who Has Finally Won the Reisman v. Broches Debate of Two Brill / Nijhoff p. 828 2015 Decades Ago?, in Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century (Jean E. Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret eds.) Tuck, Andrew P. Investor-State Arbitration Revised: A Critical Analysis of the Revisions and Proposed Law and Business Vol. 13, No. 4, 2007 Reforms to the ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Review of the p. 885 Americas Uchkunova, Inna Much Ado about Nothing – Conditional Stay of Enforcement in Annulment Proceedings Arbitration Vol. 30, No. 2, 2014 under the ICSID Convention International p. 283 Van Harten, Gus Perceived Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in The Backlash against Investment p. 443 2010 Arbitration (Michael Waibel et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Van Houtte, Hans Article 52 of the Washington Convention – A Brief Introduction, in IAI International p. 11 2004 Arbitration Series No. 1, Annulment of ICSID Awards (Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi eds., Juris and International Arbitration Institute) Verhoosel, Gaëtan Annulment and Enforcement Review of Treaty Awards: To ICSID or Not to ICSID? ICSID Review— Vol. 23, No. 1, 2008 Foreign Investment p. 119 Journal Volkmer, Sven-Michael Stay of Enforcement Proceedings in ICSID Annulment Proceedings: Taking Stock Journal of Vol. 29, No. 6, 2012 International pp. 691-714 Arbitration 22 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Von Staden, Andreas Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Enron, and Vol II, p. 207 2011 Sempra Annulment Decisions, in Czech Yearbook of International Law (Alexander J. Bělohlávek and Naděžda Rozehnalová eds., Juris) Von Wobeser, Claus Estándar de aplicación de la causal de anulación contenida en el artículo 52(1)(b) del p. 265 2011 convenio CIADI, tratándose de la extralimitación de facultades en la aplicación de la ley, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Waibel, Michael, et al. The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality, in The Backlash p. xxxvii 2010 Against Investment Arbitration (Michael Waibel et al. eds., Kluwer Law International) Wald, Arnoldo Estado de necesidad en Enron, Sempra y CMS: Extralimitación manifiesta de las facultades p. 283 2011 como causal de anulación, in Sistema de Anulación de los Laudos CIADI, Anuario Latinoamericano de Arbitraje N°1 (Carlos A. Soto Coaguila ed., Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje) Wälde, Thomas W. ICSID ‘Annulment Committee’ Transnational No. 1 2004 Dispute Management Walsh, Thomas W. Substantive Review of ICSID Awards: Is the Desire for Accuracy Sufficient to Compromise Berkeley Journal Vol. 24, No. 2, 2006 Finality? of International p. 444 Law Williams, David A.R. International Commercial Arbitration and Globalization – Review and Recourse against Journal of World Vol. 4, p. 251 2003 Awards Rendered under Investment Treaties Investment Williams, David A.R. Challenging Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards – Issues Concerning the Forum Arising Business Law Vol. 2003, No. 2003 from the Metalclad Case International 2, p. 156 Wilson, Michael The Enron v. Argentina Annulment Decision: Moving a Bishop Vertically in the Precarious University of Vol. 43, No. 2, 2012 ICSID System Miami Inter- p. 347 American Law Review Yannaca-Small, Catherine Annulment of ICSID Awards: Limited Scope But Is there Potential?, in Arbitration Under p. 635 2010 International Investment Agreements: A Guide to Key Issues (Catherine Yannaca-Small ed., Oxford University Press) 23 Bibliography on ICSID Annulment Annex 3 Author(s) Title of Book, Book Chapter, or Article Periodical Title / Volume / Year URL Page Yannaca-Small, Catherine Improving the System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Overview OECD Working No. 2006/1 Feb. 2006 Paper on International Investment, , available at http://www.oecd.or g/dataoecd/3/59/36 052284.pdf 24