States to bear their own costs, since there is no clear winner

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.

Interest is based on USD-denominated Turkish bonds

Lack of original invoices and documentation does not defeat claims for sums dues, since evidence existed of parties’ attempt to settle these claims

Defences based on limitations and abandonment of claims under international law are dismissed

Force majeure applies only to limited period of time, as civil strife situation became more bearable starting in mid-2007

In calculating discount for oil sold by KRG, tribunal relies on Iraq’s experts, whose methodology included updates and sanity checks

Turkey’s breach of the ITP Agreements led to Iraq’s losses resulting from the KRG’s discounted oil sales, but compensation is reduced on account of contributory causation

Overpayments by the KRG should be compensated

Monies received by federated Kurdish entity are treated as having been paid to Iraq due to international law principle of unity of the state

Iraq gets declaratory relief, but no guarantees from Turkey

Only prohibition against genocide – and not obligation to prevent genocide – has <em>jus cogens</em> character; Turkey cannot rely on the latter to justify breaches of the ITP Agreements

Terror attack incapacitating last remaining pipeline could have been a fundamental change of circumstances, but Turkey’s wrongful act preceded it

No suspension of treaty on account of material breach, since Turkey had acquiesced to the situation

Iraq’s alleged breaches of the ITP Agreements were not such as to warrant Turkey’s suspension of its obligations

Even if exceptio non adimpleti exists under international law, requirements are not met since Turkey’s obligations were not reciprocal to Iraq’s

Other claims are mostly rejected; onus was on Iraq to prevent KRG from feeding the pipeline

Turkey’s defences are unavailing as tribunal finds that Iraq’s federal government acted within its rights, while Turkey knew it was breaching the ITP Agreements

Turkey had no obligation to follow unrealistic instructions to shut down the pipeline; but following KRG’s instructions to load the oil amounted to a breach

Tribunal sees no ground to reopen finding of admissibility; dispute about past damages is not moot

States are free to opt for domestic law to govern discrete issues; French law in the underlying agreement is limited to

ITP Agreements qualify as treaty and are thus governed by international law

Parties’ objections to the appointment of replacement arbitrators see different outcomes

Tribunal declines jurisdiction over state-owned entity

Background: Oil pipeline, in disrepair, is used by Kurdish authorities despite contrary instructions from Iraq’s federal government

Lack of compensation renders the expropriation unlawful

Archives