Dissenting judges saw obligation to negotiate, and would have assessed Chile’s compliance therewith; President Yusuf added remarks on ICJ’s judicial role

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.

ICJ considered that cumulative appreciation of evidence is irrelevant when individual documents do not support applicant’s claim

General obligation to settle dispute by peaceful means does not entail specific obligation to negotiate

Legitimate expectations do not form part of general international law

ICJ reaffirmed ‘strict’ notion of estoppel and rejected Bolivia’s argument due to lack of detrimental reliance by the state

No acquiescence in relation to statements by Bolivia that did not require reaction by Chile

Chilean letters and declarations express willingness to enter into negotiations, but do not contain a unilateral undertaking

Dissenters would have interpreted parties’ correspondence differently

Court saw no intention to create obligation to negotiate in bilateral exchanges between Chile and Bolivia

Existence of obligation to negotiate should emerge from objective elements

Obligation to negotiate does not imply obligation to reach an agreement

ICJ finds that subject-matter of the dispute is not covered by Pact of Bogotá’s exclusion clause

Background: Bolivia took Chile to the ICJ, seeking renegotiation of sovereign access to Pacific Ocean

Judges Sebutinde and Robinson would have attached greater importance to principle of good faith and ICJ’s obiter in Bosnian Genocide case

Georgia was ordered to partially reimburse claimant’s legal costs, due to late jurisdictional objections

Majority declined jurisdiction over claim for development costs, finding no intellectual property amounting to an investment in Georgia

Tribunal justified reliance on ICSID case-law, and found deliberate omission of ‘investment’ definition in ICSID Convention

Georgian investment law contained consent to ICSID arbitration, tribunal held

Jurisdictional objections were raised with “extreme delay”, but tribunal agreed to hear them

Early pleadings were confused on jurisdiction, before Mihaly award prompted clearer objection from Georgia

Tribunal rejected claimant’s power to claim on behalf of its shareholders

Tribunal issued provisional measures, ordering domestic courts to suspend allegedly “collusive” proceedings

Claimant’s request that documents be withheld from the state is rejected

Co-arbitrators rejected Georgia’s challenge to claimant’s nominee, finding “casual, social acquaintance” with claimant’s witness insufficient to warrant the arbitrator’s disqualification

Background: Failed negotiations for hydroelectric power plant rehabilitation led to ICSID arbitration

Archives