Analogical Reasongin in International Investment Law; Its Functions and Inclusions

Document Type : Scientific research

Author

• Heidar Piri

Assistant Professor of Public International Law,, Law Department, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan

10.22067/economlaw.2023.82481.1276

Abstract

In any legal system, it is not possible to foresee legal rules for every imaginable situation or matter. No legislature can claim that it has predicted codified laws for all legal issues, and that under no circumstances the judge will face non liquet on the ground of brevity, deficiency or silence of law in order to decide disputes. This matter has been acknowledged in article 42 (2) of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention), according to which, ‘‘The Tribunal may not bring in a finding of non liquet on the ground of silence or obscurity of the law’’. Hence, the arbitrator has to issues an award. He, on the pretext of the silence of or obscurity of law in the matter, or its brevity, cannot refrain from doing so. Since the establishment of the ICSID under the Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states and other investment treaty arbitrations, different methods have been used to fill gaps, ambiguity and brevity of the laws, the most obvious of which is analogical reasoning. Although the Court, in most cases, has been silent about resorting to analogy in its methodologies; it is suggested that analogy plays an important role in the arbitration of ICSID and other investments treaties, as a means of filling gaps, determining the meaning of the provisions of the treaties, eliminating the ambiguity and brevity of the concepts, rules and the principles of international investment law, as well as identifying the legal rule governing each cases. This article, while using the descriptive-analytical method, is focused on analyzing the role analogy as a basic method of legal reasoning in the judicial award of investment disputes tribunals.

Keywords

• Analogy
• Legal reasoning
• Non Liquet
• ICSID
• Investment Treaties

References

 

[1] AES Corporation v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction of 26 April 2005. 

[2]Azurix Corp.  v.  The Argentie Republic,ICSID  Case  No.  ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 December 2003. 

[3] Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award of 14 July 2006. 

[4] Becker, L.C., ‘Analogy in Legal Reasoning’, Ethics, Vol.83, 1973.

[5] Bryan A. Garner. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.

[6] Casado v. Chile (Victor Pey Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile), ICSID Case ARB/98/2. BIT Chile –Spain Provisional Measures 2001, 16 ICSID Rev– FILJ (2001).

[7] Corn Products Int’l, Inc. v. Mexico (ICSID-NAFTA Ch. 11), Case No. ARB(AF)/04/01, Decision on Responsibility, 2008.

[8] Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, UNCITRAL, Partial Award of 19 August 2005.

[9] Falsafi, Hedayatollah. (2015). Permanent Peace and Rule of Law; Dialectics of sameness and difference, Tehran, Farhang Nashr No Publication (In Persian).

[10] Fauchald, Ole Kristian. (2008). The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals: An Empirical Analysis, EJIL, Vol.19, No.2.     

[11] Gas Natural v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, Decision on Jurisdiction of 17 July 2005.

[12] General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 33 ILM1153(1994).

[13] General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement, 33 ILM 1167 (1994).

[14] Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad; Piri, Heidar; Mahmoody, Seyed Hadi (2019), Discovery of Legal Rule through Analogy by the International Court of Justice, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol.49, No.4, pp.1149-1169 (In Persian).

[15] Hosseini Zubeidi, Mohammad Morteza. (1993). Taj al-Arus Man Javaher al-Qamoos, Vol.8, Beirut, Dar al-Fakr (In Arabic).

[16] Ibn Faris bin Zakaria, Abul Hossein Ahmad. (1983). Ma'jam Maqays Al-Lagheh, Vol.11, Qom, Islamic Propaganda Office Publlisher. (In Arabic).

[17] ICJ Reports, LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 2001.

[18] ICSID, CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic - Award, 12 May 2005, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8. 

[19] ICSID, Mondev International Ltd v United States of America- Award, 11 October 2002, ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/99/2. 

[20] ICSID, Total SA v Argentine Republic – Decision on Liability, 27 December 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1.

[21] Juthe, Andre, (2005). “Argument by Analogy”, Argumentation, Vol.19, Issue.1.

[22] Lamond, Grant, 2008, Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[23] Methanex Corp. v. United States (UNCITRAL-NAFTA Ch. 11), Decision on Amici Curiae, 2001.

[24] Mondev Int’l Ltd. v. United States (ICSID-NAFTA Ch. 11), Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, para. 144 (Oct. 11, 2002).

[25] NAFTA (UNCITRAL), SD Myers Inc v Canada, Partial Award, 13 November 2000.

[26] Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).

[27] Piri, Heidar; Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad; Mahmoody, Seyed Hadi (2021), The Application of Analogical Reasoning in International Criminal Law System; Perhaps, Dos and Don’ts, Criminal law Research, Vol.9 (35), pp.139-169. (In Persian).

[28] Roberts, A (2013), Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment System, American Journal of International Law, Vol.107, Issue.1.

[29] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 2187, No. 38544.

[30] Rosenne, Shabtai, 2006, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920– 2005, Vol.III: Procedure, Martinus Nijhoff.

[31] Schill, Stephan, 2010, “International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law: An Introduction”, In S. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Oxford University Press.

[32] Schill, Stephan, 2011, “System‐Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Law-making”, GLJ, Vol.12, No.5.

[33] Telenor v. Hungary (Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Republic of Hungary), ICSID Case ARB/04/15. BIT Hungary – Norway Decision on jurisdiction 2006.

[34] Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement.

[35] Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 25 September 2001.

[36]Waste Management, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3 (NAFTA), Award of 30 April 2004.

[37] Z. Elkins et al., ‘Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960–2000’, 2006, International Organization, Vol. 60.