Abstract
AbstractThe success of an international claim impugning a series of State acts, or a ‘composite act’, straddling the date a treaty comes into force can depend on the weight the tribunal gives to the elements of the composite act occurring before that date. Recent bilateral investment treaty decisions highlight ambiguities on this critical issue. One tribunal practically ignored State acts occurring before the treaty came into force in finding that there had been no breach of the treaty, whereas another tribunal considered those previous acts in reaching the opposite conclusion. This paper identifies steps to ensure future tribunals give consistent weight to the elements of a composite act occurring before a treaty comes into force.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference53 articles.
1. Agrotexim v Greece, Application No 1480/89, [1995] ECHR 42 (24 10 1995).
2. Azurix Corp v Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/01/1, 14 07 2006, para 377.
3. In that case, the applicants had already been in custody for two years and two months before the Convention came into force with regard to Turkey on 22 01 1990. The court said at para 525
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Of Relevant Dates and Political Processes: State Succession and the Dissolution of the Former Yugoslavia;Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice;2022
2. Article 28;Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;2017-07-13
3. Article 28. Non-retroactivity of treaties;Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;2011-09-09