The Invocation of State of Necessity Defense to justify Covid-related Measures Before International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID)
الكلمات المفتاحية:
State of Necessity Defense, Covid-related Measures, ICSID
الملخص
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has forced countries to adopt a number of regulatory defensive measures, which, in turn, could negatively impact foreign investors. Therefore, many conceive that foreign investors might recourse to ICSID to initiate investor-State claims against host states under different bilateral investment treaties (hereinafter BIT). The Covid-19 pandemic has badly affected Kuwait, forcing it to adopt a national lockdown to slow down the transmission of the disease.
The lockdown has remained in place for several weeks causing a number of layoff of employees, and companies to declared bankrupt. In this context, this article argues that if UCSID claims are initiated against Kuwait, Kuwait will be able to defend its Covid-19- related measures under the BIT defenses, particularly it can invoke the necessity defense through non-precluded measures provision (hereinafter NPM).
المراجع
1. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard
2. Maryla Maliszewska Aaditya Mattoo and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, ‘The Potential Impact of Covid-19 of GDP and Trade: A Preliminary Assessment, Policy Research’ (2020) World Bank Working Paper No. 9211 (last visited 18 Feb 2021).
3. Ben Wick, ‘The IMF says its forecast for the COVID-19 recession might now be too optimistic’ World Economic Forum (18 April 2020) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/imf-economy-coronavirus-covid-19-recession (last visited 18 Feb 2021).
4. Adam Payne, ‘Spain has Nationalized all of its Private Hospitals as the Country goes into Coronavirus Lockdown’ Business Insider (16 March 2020) (last visited 12 Feb 2021).
5. Memorandum from President Donald Trump to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (27 March 2020) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-order-defence-production-act-regarding-general motorscompany/ (last visited 12 Feb 2021).
6. Oliver Hailes, ‘Epidemic Sovereignty? Contesting Investment Treaty Claims arising from Coronavirus Measures’ EJIL: Talk! (27 March 2020)
7. Cosmo Sanderson, ‘Peru warned of potential ICSID claim over Covid-19 measures’ Latin Lawyer (15 April 2020) https://latinlawyer.com/article/1225491/peru-warned-of-potential-icsid-claims-over-covid-19-measures (last visited 12 Feb 2021).
8. Kuwait Covid-19 restrictions: https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/438336/kuwait-several-covid-related restrictions-remain-in-place-in-kuwait-as-of-feb-3-update-29. (last visited 16 Feb 2021).
9. The final adopted version of its text looked as follows,
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in
10. conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) Is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) Does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists,
11. or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
12. Crawford, James, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries,
13. (2001), 80.
14. Sweet, Alec Stone, Investor-state Arbitration: proportionality’s New Frontier, 4 LAW & ETHICS HUM. RTS, (2010), 47, 69.
15. Ago, Roberto, The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility, Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Addendum (1980), The ILC Yearbook (1980) Vol. II (1), Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5, 5.
16. James Crawford, Second Report on State Responsibility: Addendum, (1999) UN Doc A/CN.4/498/Add.2, at para
17. 214 [Crawford, Second Report]. Available online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_498.pdf
(last visited 6 Feb 2021).
18. The Neptune, reprinted in IV International Adjudications: Modern Series 372 (John Basset Moore ed., 1931), citedin Roman Boed, “State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct”, (2000) 3(1) Yale
19. Human Rights and Development Law Journal 1, footnote 28.
20. Ago, Eighth Report, supra (note 14), 39, footnote 117.
21. See, https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
22. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art 12.2.
23. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 18) para 55.
24. Crawford, Supra (n 9), 83.
25. See Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC-Hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals, 2 J. INT’L ECON. L.641 (1999).
26. The ILC Yearbook (1980), Vol. II (2), Doc. A/35/10 at 39, para 14 [The ILC Yearbook (1980), Vol. II (2)]. Available online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_1980_v2_p2_e.pdf (last visited 15 Feb 2021), 150, para 35.
27. Crawford, James, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and
28. Commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 184 [Crawford, ILC Articles],160.
29. Andreas Von Staden, "Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Enron, and Sempra Annulment Decisions", Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working paper No. 2010-13 (November 2010), available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725909 (last visited 17 Feb 2021).
30. ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8; Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. Ponderosa Assets. LP v Argentine Republic, (30 July 2010) Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/3 [Enron Annulment]; Sempra Energy Int’l v Argentine Republic, (29 June 2010) Decision on Annulment, para36.
31. S.R. Subramanian, “Too Similar or Too Different: State of Necessity as a Defense under Customary International Law and the Bilateral Investment Treaty and their Relationship”, (2012) 9 (1) Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 68, para 133.
32. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), Judgement, (6 November 2003) Judgement, ICJ, at 196, para 73 [Oil Platforms], available online at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/9715.pdf (last visited 19 Feb 2021).
33. See CMS Gas Transmission Co v The Argentine Republic, (25 September 2007) Annulment Decision, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8.
34. See ILC, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (4 April 2006), Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 [ILC Fragmentation Report], online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf (last visited 25 Feb 2021).
35. William W. Burke-White, “The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of ICSID System”, (2008) 3 Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 199, 206.
36. U.S.-Argentina BIT (1994), Article II, signed 14 November 1991; entered into force 20 October 1994. Available online: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/127.
37. The scope of NPM clauses can also be limited to other treaty provisions such as expropriation or nationalization
38. (Belgian-Luxemburg-China BIT).
39. Uganda - Belgium-Luxembourg BIT (2005), Article 3(2).
40. Barnali Choudhury, "Exception Provisions as a Gateway to Incorporating Human Rights Issues into International Investment Agreements", (2010-11) 49 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 670, 688.
41. Susan Rose-Ackerman & Benjamin Billa, "Treaties and National Security", (2008) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 437.
42. See Stephan Schill & Robyn Briese “If the State Considers: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement”, (2009) 13 Max Plank Yearbook of United National Law, 67.
43. U.S.-Bahrain BIT (September 19, 1999), Article 14.
44. Article 18(2), the U.S.-Uruguay BIT (November 4, 2005).
45. LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, (Oct. 3, 2006), para 214.
46. Newcombe and Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International BV 2009), 495.
47. Prabhash Ranjan, ‘India’s International Investment Agreements and India’s Regulatory Power as a Host Nation’ (PhD thesis, Kings College, London 2013).
48. WILLIAM W. BURKE-WHITE & ANDREAS VON STADEN, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol 48:2, 361.
49. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos– Containing Products, ¶¶ 16, 27, WT/DS135/AB/R (Mar. 12, 2001).
50. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures., Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 493, available at http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm (last visited 15 Feb 2021).
51. See, Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC-Hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals, 2 J. INT’L ECON. L.641 (1999).
52. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 116–19, WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
53. Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, 84, WT/DS76/AB/R (Feb. 22, 1999).
54. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 116–19, WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
55. Letter of Transmittal, U.S.-Kyrgyzstan BIT, Article X, January 19, 1993, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-13. Available online at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/43567.pdf (last visited 9 Feb 2021).
56. Catherine Kessedjian, "Public Order in European Law", (2007) 1 Erasmus Law Review 25, 26.
57. MJB Bernier, "Droit Public and Ordre Public", (1929) 15 Transactions of the Grotius Society 83,
58. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶¶ 306, 420, 434.
59. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶ 399.
60. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Written Submission (Amicus Curiae Brief) by the World Health Organization and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (Jan. 28, 2015).
61. See, e.g., Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (Aug. 2, 2010), 266; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (Aug. 25, 2014), ¶ 8.75.
62. https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/445301/kuwait-authorities-amend-covid-19-entry-restrictionseffective-feb-21-update-31
63. See TECNICAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES TECMED S.A. v.THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003.
64. Tim K. Mackey & and Bryan A. Liang, “ Lessons from SARS and H1N1/A: Employing a WHO–WTO forum to promote optimal economic-public health pandemic response The continuation of the measures should be based on scientific opinion”, Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 33, 1, 119–130.
65. Nouf Almazidi, Kuwait COVID-19 Business Impact Survey Finds 45% of Businesses have Shut Down Since February, available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kuwait-covid-19-business-impact-survey-finds-45-of-businesses-have-shut-down-since-february-301060491.html (last visit March 6 2021).
66. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶¶ 306, 420, 434.
67. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶ 399.
68. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Written Submission (Amicus Curiae Brief) by the World Health Organization and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (Jan. 28, 2015).
69. See, e.g., Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (Aug. 2, 2010), 266; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (Aug. 25, 2014), 8.75.
70. For example, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union-China BIT includes at Art. 4(2) a national and essential security clause that relates only to the provisions on expropriation, and the Japan-China BIT contains in its Protocol a national and essential security clause that relates only to the provisions on non-discrimination.
71. Energy Charter Treaty, Art. 24(1) (“This Article shall not apply to Articles 12, 13 and 29”). See
72. Financial committee report. Available at: https://www.albayan.ae/economy/arab/2021-02-14-1.4092905.
73. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art 12.2(c); International Health Regulations 2005. Article 15 of the Constitution of Kuwait 1962 provides that ‘The State is responsible for the public health and the means to prevent pandemics”.
2. Maryla Maliszewska Aaditya Mattoo and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, ‘The Potential Impact of Covid-19 of GDP and Trade: A Preliminary Assessment, Policy Research’ (2020) World Bank Working Paper No. 9211
3. Ben Wick, ‘The IMF says its forecast for the COVID-19 recession might now be too optimistic’ World Economic Forum (18 April 2020) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/imf-economy-coronavirus-covid-19-recession (last visited 18 Feb 2021).
4. Adam Payne, ‘Spain has Nationalized all of its Private Hospitals as the Country goes into Coronavirus Lockdown’ Business Insider (16 March 2020)
5. Memorandum from President Donald Trump to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (27 March 2020) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-order-defence-production-act-regarding-general motorscompany/ (last visited 12 Feb 2021).
6. Oliver Hailes, ‘Epidemic Sovereignty? Contesting Investment Treaty Claims arising from Coronavirus Measures’ EJIL: Talk! (27 March 2020)
7. Cosmo Sanderson, ‘Peru warned of potential ICSID claim over Covid-19 measures’ Latin Lawyer (15 April 2020) https://latinlawyer.com/article/1225491/peru-warned-of-potential-icsid-claims-over-covid-19-measures (last visited 12 Feb 2021).
8. Kuwait Covid-19 restrictions: https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/438336/kuwait-several-covid-related restrictions-remain-in-place-in-kuwait-as-of-feb-3-update-29. (last visited 16 Feb 2021).
9. The final adopted version of its text looked as follows,
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in
10. conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) Is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) Does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists,
11. or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
12. Crawford, James, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries,
13. (2001), 80.
14. Sweet, Alec Stone, Investor-state Arbitration: proportionality’s New Frontier, 4 LAW & ETHICS HUM. RTS, (2010), 47, 69.
15. Ago, Roberto, The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility, Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Addendum (1980), The ILC Yearbook (1980) Vol. II (1), Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5, 5.
16. James Crawford, Second Report on State Responsibility: Addendum, (1999) UN Doc A/CN.4/498/Add.2, at para
17. 214 [Crawford, Second Report]. Available online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_498.pdf
(last visited 6 Feb 2021).
18. The Neptune, reprinted in IV International Adjudications: Modern Series 372 (John Basset Moore ed., 1931), citedin Roman Boed, “State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct”, (2000) 3(1) Yale
19. Human Rights and Development Law Journal 1, footnote 28.
20. Ago, Eighth Report, supra (note 14), 39, footnote 117.
21. See, https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
22. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art 12.2.
23. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 18) para 55.
24. Crawford, Supra (n 9), 83.
25. See Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC-Hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals, 2 J. INT’L ECON. L.641 (1999).
26. The ILC Yearbook (1980), Vol. II (2), Doc. A/35/10 at 39, para 14 [The ILC Yearbook (1980), Vol. II (2)]. Available online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_1980_v2_p2_e.pdf (last visited 15 Feb 2021), 150, para 35.
27. Crawford, James, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and
28. Commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 184 [Crawford, ILC Articles],160.
29. Andreas Von Staden, "Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Enron, and Sempra Annulment Decisions", Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working paper No. 2010-13 (November 2010), available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725909 (last visited 17 Feb 2021).
30. ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8; Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. Ponderosa Assets. LP v Argentine Republic, (30 July 2010) Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/3 [Enron Annulment]; Sempra Energy Int’l v Argentine Republic, (29 June 2010) Decision on Annulment, para36.
31. S.R. Subramanian, “Too Similar or Too Different: State of Necessity as a Defense under Customary International Law and the Bilateral Investment Treaty and their Relationship”, (2012) 9 (1) Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 68, para 133.
32. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), Judgement, (6 November 2003) Judgement, ICJ, at 196, para 73 [Oil Platforms], available online at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/9715.pdf (last visited 19 Feb 2021).
33. See CMS Gas Transmission Co v The Argentine Republic, (25 September 2007) Annulment Decision, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8.
34. See ILC, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (4 April 2006), Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 [ILC Fragmentation Report], online at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf (last visited 25 Feb 2021).
35. William W. Burke-White, “The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of ICSID System”, (2008) 3 Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 199, 206.
36. U.S.-Argentina BIT (1994), Article II, signed 14 November 1991; entered into force 20 October 1994. Available online: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/127.
37. The scope of NPM clauses can also be limited to other treaty provisions such as expropriation or nationalization
38. (Belgian-Luxemburg-China BIT).
39. Uganda - Belgium-Luxembourg BIT (2005), Article 3(2).
40. Barnali Choudhury, "Exception Provisions as a Gateway to Incorporating Human Rights Issues into International Investment Agreements", (2010-11) 49 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 670, 688.
41. Susan Rose-Ackerman & Benjamin Billa, "Treaties and National Security", (2008) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 437.
42. See Stephan Schill & Robyn Briese “If the State Considers: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement”, (2009) 13 Max Plank Yearbook of United National Law, 67.
43. U.S.-Bahrain BIT (September 19, 1999), Article 14.
44. Article 18(2), the U.S.-Uruguay BIT (November 4, 2005).
45. LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, (Oct. 3, 2006), para 214.
46. Newcombe and Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International BV 2009), 495.
47. Prabhash Ranjan, ‘India’s International Investment Agreements and India’s Regulatory Power as a Host Nation’ (PhD thesis, Kings College, London 2013).
48. WILLIAM W. BURKE-WHITE & ANDREAS VON STADEN, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol 48:2, 361.
49. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos– Containing Products, ¶¶ 16, 27, WT/DS135/AB/R (Mar. 12, 2001).
50. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures., Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 493, available at http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm (last visited 15 Feb 2021).
51. See, Joost Pauwelyn, The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC-Hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals, 2 J. INT’L ECON. L.641 (1999).
52. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 116–19, WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
53. Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, 84, WT/DS76/AB/R (Feb. 22, 1999).
54. See Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 116–19, WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998)
55. Letter of Transmittal, U.S.-Kyrgyzstan BIT, Article X, January 19, 1993, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-13. Available online at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/43567.pdf (last visited 9 Feb 2021).
56. Catherine Kessedjian, "Public Order in European Law", (2007) 1 Erasmus Law Review 25, 26.
57. MJB Bernier, "Droit Public and Ordre Public", (1929) 15 Transactions of the Grotius Society 83,
58. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶¶ 306, 420, 434.
59. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶ 399.
60. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Written Submission (Amicus Curiae Brief) by the World Health Organization and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (Jan. 28, 2015).
61. See, e.g., Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (Aug. 2, 2010), 266; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (Aug. 25, 2014), ¶ 8.75.
62. https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/445301/kuwait-authorities-amend-covid-19-entry-restrictionseffective-feb-21-update-31
63. See TECNICAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES TECMED S.A. v.THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003.
64. Tim K. Mackey & and Bryan A. Liang, “ Lessons from SARS and H1N1/A: Employing a WHO–WTO forum to promote optimal economic-public health pandemic response The continuation of the measures should be based on scientific opinion”, Journal of Public Health Policy Vol. 33, 1, 119–130.
65. Nouf Almazidi, Kuwait COVID-19 Business Impact Survey Finds 45% of Businesses have Shut Down Since February, available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kuwait-covid-19-business-impact-survey-finds-45-of-businesses-have-shut-down-since-february-301060491.html (last visit March 6 2021).
66. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶¶ 306, 420, 434.
67. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016), ¶ 399.
68. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Written Submission (Amicus Curiae Brief) by the World Health Organization and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (Jan. 28, 2015).
69. See, e.g., Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (Aug. 2, 2010), 266; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (Aug. 25, 2014), 8.75.
70. For example, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union-China BIT includes at Art. 4(2) a national and essential security clause that relates only to the provisions on expropriation, and the Japan-China BIT contains in its Protocol a national and essential security clause that relates only to the provisions on non-discrimination.
71. Energy Charter Treaty, Art. 24(1) (“This Article shall not apply to Articles 12, 13 and 29”). See
72. Financial committee report. Available at: https://www.albayan.ae/economy/arab/2021-02-14-1.4092905.
73. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art 12.2(c); International Health Regulations 2005. Article 15 of the Constitution of Kuwait 1962 provides that ‘The State is responsible for the public health and the means to prevent pandemics”.
منشور
2021-06-24
كيفية الاقتباس
Abd Almohsen Alajmy. (2021). The Invocation of State of Necessity Defense to justify Covid-related Measures Before International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID). Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, (68), 381-405. https://doi.org/10.33193/JALHSS.68.2021.517
إصدار
القسم
المقالات
