Tribunal hearing taximeter arbitration submits post-hearing questions to parties

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Costs are split, given respondent’s late invocation of exception

Essential security clause cannot be excluded through treaty’s MFN clause, which does not extend to dispute resolution

Evidence at hand is sufficient to establish plausible nexus between state’s underlying conduct and essential security exception

Essential security interests clause was invoked in good faith, even if underlying conduct had not immediately be cast in these terms

Treaty’s essential security clause precludes finding of wrongfulness, but review of proper application is limited

Invocation of essential security clause remains justiciable and does not operate to deny the tribunal’s jurisdiction or to limit remedies

Treaty’s travaux préparatoires evidence intent of the USA in drafting essential security interests clause, but not intent of Colombia

Views expressed by Colombia and the USA in arbitration proceedings do not qualify as subsequent practice or authentic interpretation

Context of essential security interests clause, as well as comparable developments in general international law, inform the interpretation

TPA’s essential security interests clause is self-judging and open-ended, reserving “a broad margin of appreciation” to invoking state

Colombia’s invocation of essential security exception is not untimely

Proceedings are punctuated by fights over evidence

Background: Asset forfeiture proceedings prompt ICSID claim

Agreement on exchange of information between parallel tribunals results in analogous decisions on transparency

Tribunal takes note of withdrawal of interim measures’ request, deferring decision on costs to later stage of arbitration

Alleged abuse of rights also warrants bifurcation

Objection related to notice of intent requirements under NAFTA and the Argentina-Mexico BIT meets criteria for bifurcation

Time limit objection under the Argentina-Mexico BIT is also bifurcated

Objection concerning Mr. Sastre’s dual nationality and his Mexican domicile warrants bifurcation, despite being “fact-intensive”

Ratione personae and ratione materiae objections warrant bifurcation

Mexico’s “self-consolidation objection” is serious

Tribunal applies three-prong test on bifurcation, but considers that procedural efficiency is the “principal factor” to take into account

Tribunal has the power to analyse preliminary objections in one single proceeding, despite Mexico’s objection to an alleged “auto-consolidation”

Tribunal makes no decision on costs allocation, but places costs for intra-EU objection on the record for future costs decision

Archives