Članak
dec 31
Nazad

NECESSITY AS A GROUND FOR PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW

Mirko Vasiljević, Marko Jovanović

10.5937/AnaliPFB1603005V
SAŽETAK /

The issue of necessity as a ground for precluding wrongfulness has received close attention over the last two decades both in case law and in scholarly writings. Arbitrations conducted against Argentina for breaches of bilateral investment treaty obligations committed while fighting against economic crisis revived the old controversies related to the concept of necessity in general public international law, but also brought up some new dilemmas. This paper analyses the use of necessity in international investment law in light of what the authors suggest to be the legal purpose of this concept, points to and discusses the divergences in case law with respect to some of the elements of the defence based on necessity and offers the solutions susceptible to lead to a more harmonious understanding of necessity in international investment law.

ČLANAK JE RASPOLOŽIV NA /
Engleskom  
REFERENCE /
  • Agirrezabalaga, I. I., “El estado de necessidad, como causal eximente de la responsabilidadpordaños a las inver-siones”, Revista de Arbitraje Comercial y de Inversiones 1/2009.
  • Agius, M., “The Invocation of Necessity in International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review 2/2009.
  • Ago, R., “Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility – Document A/CN.4/318/ADD.5–7”, Yearbook of the International Law Commission vol. II(1), 1980.
  • Bishop, R. D., Crawford, J., Reisman W. M., Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, Kluwer Law International 20142.
  • Bjorklund, A. K., “Emergency Exceptions: State of Necessity and Force Majeure”, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-national Investment Law (eds. Peter Muchlinski, Federico Ortino, ChristophSchreuer), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
  • Boed, R., “State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct”, Yale Human Rights and Development Journal 1/2000.
  • Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 20087.
  • Burke-White, W., von Staden Andreas, “Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Ap-plication of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties”, Virginia Journal of Inter-national Law 2/2008.
  • Caron, D., “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship between Form and Authority”, American Journal of International Law 4/2002.
  • Crawford, J., “Second Report on State Responsibility – Document A/CN.4/498/ADD.1–4”, 1999.
  • Dolzer, R., Schreuer, C., Principles of International Investment Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 20122.
  • Dumberry, P., “A Few Observations on the Remaining Fundamental Importance of Customary Rules in the Age of Treatification of International Investment Law”, ASA Bulletin 1/2016.
  • Echandi, R., “Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Recent De-velopments in Investment Rulemaking”, Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to Key Issues (ed. Katia Yannaca-Small), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010.
  • Fouret, J., “CMS c/ LG&E ou l’état de nécessité en question”, Revue de l’Arbitrage 2/2007.
  • Gazzini, T., “Foreign Investment and Measures Adopted on Ground of Necessity: Towards a Common Under-standing”, Transnational Dispute Management 1/2010
  • Heathcote, S., “Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility: Necessity”, The Law of International Responsibility (eds. James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson), Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford 2010
  • International Law Commission, “Report on State Responsibility – Document A/35/10”, Yearbook of the Interna-tional Law Commission vol. II(2), 1980.
  • International Law Commission, “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries” (hereinafter: Commentary), Yearbook of International Law Commission vol. II, 2001.
  • Martinez, A., “Invoking State Defenses in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, The Backlash Against Investment Arbi-tration (eds. Michael Waibelet al.), Kluwer Law International 2010.
  • Muchlinski, P., “Policy Issues”, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (eds. Peter Muchlinski, Federico Ortino, ChristophSchreuer), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
  • Reinisch, A., “Necessity in Investment Arbitration”, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol. 40, 2010
  • Shaw, M., International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 20086.
  • Sloane, R., “On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility”, The American Journal of In-ternational Law 4/2012.
  • Sykes A., “Economic ‘Necessity’ in International Law”, American Journal of International Law 2/2015.
  • Tomka, P., “Defenses Based on Necessity Under Customary International Law and on Emergency Clauses in Bi-lateral Investment Treaties”, Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (eds. Meg Kinnear et al.), Kluwer Law International 2015.
  • Vandevelde, K. J., “A Brief History of International Investment Agreements”, University of California Davis Journal of International Law and Policy 1/2005.
  • Waibel, M., “Two Worlds of Necessity in ICSID Arbitration: CMS and LG&E”, Leiden Journal of International Law 3/2007.