Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law pp 421–491Cite as

Due Diligence in the Context of ‘Full Protection and Security’ Claims

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 682 Accesses

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 8))

Abstract

Investors advancing FPS claims bear the burden of proving a want of diligence on the part of the host state. Due diligence is an objective rather than a subjective standard. The objective standard of due diligence implies comparing the host authorities’ conduct with the course of conduct that could be expected from an average state with similar resources and in similar circumstances as the host state. Due diligence cannot be reduced to a general definition. Several factual circumstances play a role in the assessment of diligence. Among other factors, tribunals should consider the existence of an opportunity for positive action, host authorities’ awareness about the risk, certainty as to the legitimacy of the rights and interests at stake, the investor’s conduct, the existence of support by public authorities to private offenders, the need to strike a balance between the investor’s interests and the general interest, compliance with relevant provisions of domestic law, and fulfillment of other due diligence obligations under international law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sect. 11.1.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 12.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Mondev International v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002) [118] (“When a tribunal is faced with the claim by a foreign investor that the investor has been unfairly or inequitably treated or not accorded full protection and security, it is bound to pass upon that claim on the facts and by application of any governing treaty provision”).

  4. 4.

    On the fact-finding function of international adjudicators see generally: Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 165-6 (arguing at p. 166 that ‘[t]he fact-finding power of international tribunals appears to be inherent’).

  5. 5.

    On the recognition of this principle in the context of international adjudication see: Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2005) 37; Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (1998) 1 J. Int’l Econ. L. 227, 230-3; Markus Benzing, ‘Evidentiary Issues’ in Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm and Christian Tams (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012) 1234, 1245; Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 24-30 and 378.

  6. 6.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [56].

  7. 7.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [56] (directly quoting Bin Cheng’s General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, as well as Durward Sandifer’s Evidence before International Tribunals).

  8. 8.

    Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (1998) 1 J. Int’l Econ. L. 227, 230 and 232.

  9. 9.

    Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (1998) 1 J. Int’l Econ. L. 227, 230 and 232.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Sects. 12.3.2.2 and 12.4.2.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Sects. 12.3.2.2 and 12.4.2.

  12. 12.

    American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.05]. Cf. also Nicole O’Donnell, ‘Reconciling Full Protection and Security Guarantees in Bilateral Investment Treaties with Incidence of Terrorism’ (2018) 29(3) ARIA 293, 311-2 (suggesting that proof that the host state has taken ‘all necessary measures of precaution’ could provide an ‘affirmative defense’ in the context of FPS claims).

  13. 13.

    See Chap. 12, particularly at Sect. 12.4.3.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Chap. 12.

  15. 15.

    Cf. Chaps. 11 and 12.

  16. 16.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [451] (noting that the claimant had failed to submit ‘credible evidence’ in support of its FPS claim); AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16 (1 November 2013) [339] (observing that ‘Claimants have failed to substantiate their claim under the FPS standard’); Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [194-6 and 216] (finding at para 196 that the investors ‘have not discharged their burden of proof’ in respect of the facts relevant for one of their multiple FPS claims); Crystallex International Corp. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 (4 April 2016) [633] (finding that the investor ‘has not alleged, let alone shown, that it was subjected to a violation of physical security attributable to Venezuela); Enron Corp. and Ponderosa Assets L.P. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3 (22 May 2007) [287] (dismissing an FPS claim because the investor did not allege ‘[a] failure to give full protection and security to officials, employees or installations’ and underscoring that ‘[t]he argument made in general about a possible lack of protection and security in the broader ambit of the legal and political system is not in any way proven or even adequately developed’); Gold Reserve Inc. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1 (22 September 2014) [623] (restricting the scope of application of FPS to ‘physical’ protection and dismissing the claim on the ground that there was no allegation involving ‘physical harm’); Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13 (6 November 2008) [270-1] (“[the Claimants] have not established that there was an actual breach to be remedied […] irrespective of the precise scope of the standard, the Tribunal finds no breach of the Treaty”); Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Final Award (23 April 2012) [308] (noting that ‘[t]he allegation of breach of the FPS standard lacks a factual basis’); LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [154] (noting that the Claimants did neither clearly allege nor prove that the protection granted by local authorities had been insufficient or discriminatory); Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [281 and 283] (stating at para 281 that ‘the Tribunal is not persuaded that this standard has been violated by Costa Rica based on the evidence presented in this case’ and explaining at para 283 what claimants are required to ‘demonstrate’ in order for their FPS claim to be successful; see also para 285); Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, SCC Case No. V 064/2008 (9 September 2009) [173 and 243-5] (rejecting two FPS claims for lack of evidence); Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [83] (observing that ‘specific conduct’ and ‘its purported effect’ need to ‘be alleged and proved’); Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [356-9] (noting that the investor failed to ‘show’ or ‘demonstrate’ the alleged breaches of the FPS standard); Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [194, 222 and 226] (noting, in respect of one of the FPS claims raised in the proceedings, that the investor ‘failed to identify’ a failure to exercise due diligence and did not prove any harm, thus concluding that ‘the very basis of Claimant’s claim […] is not factually established’), [248-9] (observing, in respect of another FPS claim, that ‘[t]he factual evidence […] is in virtually all respects contradictory’ and underscoring that it was the claimant who bore the burden of proving the facts) and [279] (dismissing another FPS claim for lack of evidence); Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [252] (“[T]he Claimant has failed to establish that Barbados violated its obligations of the FPS standard”); Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [309 and 314] (finding at para 309 that ‘none of the facts alleged by the Claimant constituted a violation by the Respondent of the obligation to provide full protection and security’ and observing at para 314 that ‘[t]here is no evidence – not even an allegation – that the Respondent has violated this [redress] obligation’); Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [669-70] (dismissing an FPS claim on grounds that the facts alleged by the investor did not indicate a breach of the standard and that ‘the record does not support’ some of the claimant’s contentions); Rusoro Mining Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5 (22 August 2016) [550] (noting at 550, in respect of one of the investor’s FPS claims, that ‘[t]he problem with this allegation is that it is unsupported in evidence’) and [553] (concluding that ‘[t]he evidence marshalled by Rusoro is manifestly insufficient to prove its allegation’); SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [511] (observing that the claimant had failed to prove the facts on which a FPS claim was based); Sempra Energy International v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 (28 September 2007) [324] (stressing that the claimant’s argument on legal security ‘has in no way been proven’); Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [176-7] (noting that ‘Claimant has not furnished evidence’ of some of its allegations and concluding ‘there is no sufficient evidence supporting [the claim]’); Tokios Tokelés v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18 (26 July 2007) [123-37] (dismissing an FPS claim for lack of evidence); Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [229] (concluding that the investor ‘did not demonstrate’ circumstances of fact which could have provided the basis for a successful FPS claim); Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6 (16 January 2013) [228 and 231] (noting that the Claimant had failed to submit sufficient evidence in support of its FPS claim). Please note that an ICSID Ad Hoc Committee annulled the Sempra award for reasons unrelated to this particular issue. See: Sempra Energy International v Argentina, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Application for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 (29 June 2010) [229]. Cf. also: CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [357] (respondent argued that the investor must ‘identify […] factual circumstances that could support its allegation’).

  17. 17.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [53] (rejecting the Claimant’s argument that a breach of the FPS standard could be established ‘without any need to prove that the damages suffered were attributable to the State or its agents, and to establish the State’s responsibility for not acting with due diligence’). Cf. also the respondent’s argument in the CME case: CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [357] (stating that ‘CME fails to identify any factual circumstances that could support its allegation that the Czech Republic failed to provide full protection and security for its investment, or that the Czech Republic breached the obligations of full protection and security).

  18. 18.

    See generally: Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 119-21.

  19. 19.

    On the use of adverse inferences in international adjudication see generally: Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 313-22. For an analysis of the use of negative inferences in the context of investment arbitration see: Michael Polkinghorne and Charles Rosenberg, ‘The Adverse Inference in ICSID Practice’ (2015) 30(3) ICSID Rev. 741, 741-51.

  20. 20.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 12-3.

  21. 21.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 16-7.

  22. 22.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18.

  23. 23.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18.

  24. 24.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18.

  25. 25.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18.

  26. 26.

    For an author considering the relevance of ‘circumstantial evidence’ and ‘proof by inference’ in the context of FPS claims see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 247 et seq.

  27. 27.

    On the occurrence of a harmful event as a conditio sine qua non for a violation of FPS see Sect. 11.2.2.2.

  28. 28.

    On the scope of the FPS standard see Chaps. 6–10.

  29. 29.

    Chapter 14 provides a detailed assessment of the interpretation of different types of FPS clauses.

  30. 30.

    Doubts may however arise as to whether the claimant bears a burden of proof with regard to the existence and scope of the customary standard. For a detailed assessment of the relevance of the maxim iura novit curia for the identification of international custom see: Luigi Fumagalli, ‘Evidence Before the International Court of Justice: Issues of Fact and Questions of Law in the Determination of International Custom’ in Nerina Boschiero, Tullio Scovazzi, Cesare Pitea and Chiara Ragni (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law (Springer, The Hague 2013) 137, 143-6 (arguing that the parties are not generally required to prove universal custom, and providing references to multiple ICJ decisions and separate opinions of ICJ judges; however, Fumagalli draws a distinction between universal and regional custom). For an author considering that the claimant bears the burden of proving international custom see: Patrick Dumberry, The Formation and Identification of Customary International Law in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2016) 39-42. For an overview of the debate see: Markus Benzing, Das Beweisrecht vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten in zwischenstaatlichen Streitigkeiten (Springer, Heidelberg 2010) 362-6. For an arbitral tribunal specifically requiring the claimant to prove the existence of the customary FPS standard see: ADF v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1 (9 January 2003) [183] (“[W]e are not convinced that the Investor has shown the existence, in current customary law, of a general and autonomous requirement […] to accord fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security to foreign investments”). See also the argument advanced by the United States in Windstream Energy v Canada: Windstream Energy LLC v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award (27 September 2016) [331-2].

  31. 31.

    On the application of the iura novit curia maxim in international adjudication see: Joost Pauwelyn, ‘Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (1998) 1 J. Int’l Econ. L. 227, 230-3 and 242 (providing a general account of the issue but particularly focusing on the practice of WTO Panels and the WTO Appellate Body); Robert Kolb, ‘General Principles of Procedural Law’ in Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm and Christian Tams (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012) 871, 897 (presenting the maxim as an exception to the principle ne ultra petita and particularly referring to ICJ adjudication). For a detailed assessment of the principle of iura novit curia in general international law and international investment law see: Nils Börnsen, Nationales Recht in Investitionsschiedsverfahren (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016) 159-67 (arguing that arbitral tribunals have the power to conduct an autonomous assessment of the applicable law, but leaving the question open as to whether they also have a duty to do so).

  32. 32.

    On the prohibition of non liquet in international adjudication see generally: Hersch Lauterpacht, The Function of International Law in the International Community (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1933) 71-7 and 135-43; Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 28-9.

  33. 33.

    Emphasis added. Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [609].

  34. 34.

    Emphasis added. Crystallex International Corp. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 (4 April 2016) [635].

  35. 35.

    See Sect. 8.3.

  36. 36.

    Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A. and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB(AF)/04/3 & ARB(AF)/04/4 (16 June 2010) [9.12]. It should be noted, however, that the tribunal did not exclude the possibility that the FPS standard could cover the risk of public injuries. As a matter of fact, the tribunal stated that, while other standards ‘involve the investor and the state’, ‘protection provisions also involve the host state protecting the investment from a third party’ (at para 9.11).

  37. 37.

    El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [524]. See also: Eastern Sugar B.V. v Czech Republic, Partial Award, SCC Case No. 088/2004 (27 March 2007) [204] (dismissing the claim on grounds that the investor was not complaining about ‘acts of third parties’); Koch Minerals SÁRL and Koch Nitrogen International SÁRL v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19 (30 October 2017) [8.46] (dismissing the FPS claim because the case did ‘manifestly’ not refer to the prevention of physical harm by third parties); Mercer International Inc. v Canada, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/3 (6 March 2018) [7.80] (stating that, in the absence of harm originating in a third party, an FPS claim would fail); Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16 (10 April 2013) [1004] (dismissing the FPS claims on the ground that ‘Claimants did not specify or determine the duty to act against a third party that would have been breached by Argentina under the BIT’); Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [327] (requiring that the FPS claim refers to a failure to prevent ‘negative action by third parties’; nonetheless, the tribunal also considered the possibility of the FPS standard being breached ‘through actions of the State or its agents’); Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [165] (observing at para 165 that FPS claims have ‘traditionally’ involved acts of third parties and physical violence, and that the claim at issue involved ‘a different type of situation’; see also para 179).

  38. 38.

    Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [356 et seq. and 834 et seq.].

  39. 39.

    Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [839].

  40. 40.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [261] (making this general statement on the FPS standard, but subsequently focusing on the redress obligation).

  41. 41.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [283].

  42. 42.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [311 and 313]. It should be noted that the tribunal was considering an FPS claim, which was largely based on an extensive interpretation of the applicable FPS clause and pertained particularly to an alleged failure to grant ‘legal security’. The tribunal observed that the damages sustained by the investor did not result from the positive or negative conduct of the host state, but from the termination of a business contract (see paras 311-4).

  43. 43.

    See generally: Ilias Plakokefalos, ‘Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity’ (2015) 26 EJIL 471, 476-8 (underscoring the difficulties attached to causal analysis in cases involving omissions and providing an overlook of possible theoretical approaches to the subject, which are mostly inspired in American tort law).

  44. 44.

    See Sect. 8.3. Cf. also Sect. 11.3.

  45. 45.

    See, for example: Ilias Plakokefalos, ‘Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity’ (2015) 26 EJIL 471, 472-8 (particularly considering possible use in international law of causality tests developed in the context of American tort law); Sandra Stahl, Schutzpflichten im Völkerrecht. Ansatz einer Dogmatik (Springer, Heidelberg 2012) 169-82 (proposing the use of causality criteria developed in German criminal law); Tal Becker, Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility (Hart Publishing, Portland OR 2006) 285-360 (proposing a ‘causal model of state responsibility for terrorism’).

  46. 46.

    Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 81. In later works, Bastin has provided a detailed assessment of the question of causation in the context of FPS claims: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 150, 162 and 241 et seq.

  47. 47.

    See generally: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 74 et seq. and 252 et seq.

  48. 48.

    For an analysis of the ‘but for’ counterfactual in the context of FPS claims see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 74 et seq. and 252 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [356].

  50. 50.

    For the problem of ‘remoteness’ in the analysis of causation see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 262 et seq.

  51. 51.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [1].

  52. 52.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [1].

  53. 53.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [1 and 83].

  54. 54.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [4 and 71-3].

  55. 55.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [83].

  56. 56.

    Emphasis added. Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [83]. This statement could be considered as an expression of the idea that a claim must always have some minimum degree of specificity. On this requirement see, for example: Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [166] (observing that ‘it is difficult to identify any specific failure by the Respondent to exercise due diligence in protecting the Claimant’ – emphasis added); Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [251] (dismissing one of the FPS claims submitted by the investor on the ground that ‘[o]n no view is the claim sufficiently particularized’).

  57. 57.

    For an overview see: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 354 et seq.; ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘First Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (7 March 2014) 10.

  58. 58.

    For an investment arbitral tribunal expressly recognizing the existence of these opposite approaches see: Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [77].

  59. 59.

    For a critical view on the use of these private law analogies see: Dionisio Anzilotti, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Volume 1: Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Leipzig 1929) 393.

  60. 60.

    More specifically, the argument referred to the obligation ‘[t]o use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace’, codified in article VI of the Treaty of Washington of 1871. Treaty of Washington between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America (adopted 8 May 1871, entered into force 17 June 1871) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776—1949 (Volume 12: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 170, 173 article VI.

  61. 61.

    Emphasis added. ‘Argument or summary, showing the points and referring to the evidence relied upon by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in answer to the claims of the United States presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under Article 1 of the treaty concluded at Washington on the 8th May, 1871, between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America’ (undated) The Argument at Geneva. A Complete Collection of the Forensic Discussions on the Part of the United States and of Great Britain before the Tribunal of Arbitration under the Treaty of Washington (Government Printing Office, Washington 1873) 257, 268 [28-30]. For a more detailed analysis of the British argument on due diligence see: Hersch Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (With Special Reference to International Arbitration) (Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., London 1927) 217-9.

  62. 62.

    Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 620-5.

  63. 63.

    Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 620-5. The claims were submitted pursuant to a settlement agreement between Spain and Great Britain dated 29 May 1923 (at pp. 620-1). A schedule annexed to the agreement contains a brief description of each of the fifty-three claims filed there under (at pp. 621-5).

  64. 64.

    Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 621-5.

  65. 65.

    Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 617-21.

  66. 66.

    Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 644 [4].

  67. 67.

    Institut de Droit International, ‘Résolutions votées par l’Institut au cours de sa XXXI Ve Session – Responsabilité internationale des États à raison des dommages causés sur leur territoire à la personne ou aux biens des étrangers (XIIIe Commission)’ (1927) 33(II) Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 330, 332 art. 7.

  68. 68.

    Arnold Duncan McNair (First Baron McNair), International Law Opinions (Volume 2: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1956) 245. In Pantechniki v Albania (2009) the host state relied on this opinion in response to an FPS claim concerning riot violence. The Sole Arbitrator did not consider the diligentia quam in suis rebus maxim in detail. See: Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [74 et seq.]. For an author expressing support for the diligentia quam in suis standard see: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and (Full) Protection and Security in African Investment Treaties: Between Generality and Contextual Specificity’ (2017) Grotius Centre Working Paper Series 1, 22-5 (focusing, however, on the need to take into account the particular circumstances of the host state; this element is associated here to the ‘modified standard’ of due diligence).

  69. 69.

    For a similar remark see: Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 21 (observing that that ‘the purely subjective interpretation [of due diligence] would also go against the idea of an international minimum standard’).

  70. 70.

    Harry Roberts v Mexico (2 November 1926) IV RIAA 77, 80 [8].

  71. 71.

    For the characterization of FPS as an element of the international minimum standard see Chap. 5. On the relationship between the FPS standard and the minimum standard see Chaps. 4 and 5.

  72. 72.

    On the analogy of the objective standard of due diligence to the notion of the diligens paterfamilias see: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 354 et seq. On the use of the notion of the ‘average prudent man’ for the assessment of due diligence in international law see: Hersch Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (With Special Reference to International Arbitration) (Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., London 1927) 218-9 (commenting on the Alabama case).

  73. 73.

    For a more detailed account of the facts of the case see: ‘Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stuphen’ (6 January 1888) in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Volume 6: Government Printing Office, Washington 1906) 961, 961-4.

  74. 74.

    Emphasis in the original. ‘Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stuphen’ (6 January 1888) in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Volume 6: Government Printing Office, Washington 1906) 961, 962.

  75. 75.

    Ian Brownlie, System of the Law of Nations. State Responsibility (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1983) 170. For another authority quoting Mr. Bayard’s note in length see: ILC, ‘Force Majeure and Fortuitous Event as Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness: Survey of State Practice, International Judicial Decisions and Doctrine’ (27 June 1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 61, 115-6.

  76. 76.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 133. See also: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 398-9.

  77. 77.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [77].

  78. 78.

    Alwyn Freeman, ‘Responsibility of States for Unlawful Acts of their Armed Forces’ (1955) 88(3) RCADI 263, 277-8.

  79. 79.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [77].

  80. 80.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3 (27 June 1990) [77].

  81. 81.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.3] (quoting a similar statement by Ian Brownlie); El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [522] (quoting Freeman and the AAPL award at para 522, but recognizing at para 523 that the assessment of diligence necessarily varies depending on the circumstances of the case); Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v Indonesia (UNCITRAL), Final Award (15 December 2014) [625 and 628] (using a similar formula); Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16 (10 April 2013) [999-1000] (quoting Freeman and the AAPL v Sri Lanka award); Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [323] (quoting the AAPL award and making reference to Alwyn Freeman in this connection); Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [163] (quoting both Alwyn Freeman and Ian Brownlie in this connection). This formulation has often been used by claimants in investment arbitral proceedings. See, for example: Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [658] (referring to ‘the degree of protection and security that should be legitimately expected from a reasonably well-organized modern State’); Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [544] (using Freeman’s formula in connection with an FPS claim); Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 (21 July 2017) [900] (addressing the concept of due diligence and indicating that FPS ‘[requires] the reasonable measures of prevention which a well-administered government could be expected to exercise in the circumstances’).

  82. 82.

    On these different formulations of the objective standard see also: ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 10 (making particular reference to the AAPL and Tecmed awards, as well as to Alwyn Freeman’s formula).

  83. 83.

    For a detailed account of the factual background of the case see: Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [35-51].

  84. 84.

    Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [175].

  85. 85.

    Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [177].

  86. 86.

    Glamis Gold v United States. See: Glamis Gold v United States of America (UNCITRAL), Award (8 June 2009) [615].

  87. 87.

    UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment Treaties: A Review (United Nations, New York/Geneva 2005) 40. See also the claimant’s argument in Teinver v Argentina (2017): Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 (21 July 2017) [900] (relying on the formula of ‘a well-administered government’ and arguing that ‘the threshold for finding a violation of this standard [FPS] is low, since a mere lack of diligence will suffice and there is no need to establish malice or negligence’).

  88. 88.

    Glamis Gold v United States of America (UNCITRAL), Award (8 June 2009) [615].

  89. 89.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [548] (argument of Venezuela; in this connection, the respondent state further described the minimum standard in terms of ‘negligence, defective administration or bad faith’).

  90. 90.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [382-3] (referring to article 10.5.2 of the Oman-US FTA, which defined both the FET and the FPS standard by reference to the customary minimum standard of treatment). See also: Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [175] (using the phrase ‘mesures minimales nécessaires’ to describe the conduct required by the FPS standard).

  91. 91.

    American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.06].

  92. 92.

    American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.07].

  93. 93.

    Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6 (16 January 2013) [217-8].

  94. 94.

    Emphasis added. Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6 (16 January 2013) [227].

  95. 95.

    UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s (United Nations, New York/Geneva 1998) 55. See also: Caline Mouawad and Sarah Vasani, ‘Energy Disputes in Times of Civil Unrest: Transitional Governments and Foreign Investment Protections’ in Arthur Rovine (ed), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation (Brill, Leiden/Boston 2015) 234, 242 (stating that ‘[FPS] requires a State to act with a reasonable degree of diligence and to take measures to protect foreign investors and investments that are reasonable under the circumstances’ – emphasis added); Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 15-8, 22 and 25 (defining at p. 25 the standard as a duty ‘to take all reasonable and necessary measures, taking into account its [the host state’s] available resources and the conditions prevailing in the region at the particular moment’ – emphasis added); Geneviève Bastid Burdeau, ‘La clause de protection et sécurité pleine et entière’ (2015) 119(1) RGDIP 87, 98 (referring to the duty to adopt ‘mesures de prévention raisonnables’ – emphasis added).

  96. 96.

    Emphasis added. Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [308]. See also the Czech Republic’s argument at para 307.

  97. 97.

    Emphasis added. CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [353].

  98. 98.

    Emphasis added. Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 (20 August 2007) [7.4.15]. The discussion at this point focused, however, on the question whether FPS refers to physical security only. The case concerned the guarantee of ‘protection et […] sécurité pleines et entières’ in article 5(1) France-Argentina BIT. Cf. Accord entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Gouvernement de la République Argentine sur l’encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements (adopted 3 July 1991, entered into force 3 March 1993) art. 5(1).

  99. 99.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [273].

  100. 100.

    Emphasis added. El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [523]. See also: Electrabel S.A. v Hungary, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19 (30 November 2012) [7.83] (relying on this passage of the El Paso award); Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16 (10 April 2013) [1001] (quoting the award rendered in El Paso).

  101. 101.

    Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [325].

  102. 102.

    Toto Construzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [200].

  103. 103.

    Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [651].

  104. 104.

    Emphasis added. Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v Indonesia (UNCITRAL), Final Award (15 December 2014) [625].

  105. 105.

    Emphasis added. Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [353].

  106. 106.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [160].

  107. 107.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [163].

  108. 108.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [244].

  109. 109.

    Emphasis added. Koch Minerals SÁRL and Koch Nitrogen International SÁRL v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19 (30 October 2017) [8.46].

  110. 110.

    Cf. AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.2.2]; Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [817]; Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [242]. Cf. also Bernhard Friedrich Arnd Rüdiger von Pezold et al. v Zimbabwe, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15 (28 July 2015) [596] (expressing sympathy for the parties’ submission that FPS requires ‘due diligence’, understood in terms of ‘all reasonable measures’). See also the claimant’s argument in Saint-Gobain v Venezuela: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [544] (using the expression ‘reasonable measures of prevention’). For some indicative examples of a similar argument being advanced by a respondent state see: MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [267] (arguing that competent police authorities had ‘exercised due diligence and taken reasonable measures’); Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 (21 July 2017) [901] (stating that FPS ‘entails the adoption of reasonable measures’); Ulysseas Inc. v Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 June 2012) [268] (arguing that ‘the [FPS] standard only requires due care and reasonable behavior’).

  111. 111.

    Emphasis added. Agreement on Investment of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (adopted 15 August 2009, entered into force 1 January 2010) art. 7(2)(b).

  112. 112.

    Cf. Opuz v Turkey, App No 33401/02 (ECtHR: 9 June 2009) [131, 136-49 and 162] (using both the terms ‘due diligence’ and ‘reasonable measures’); Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras, Judgment on the Merits (ICtHR: 29 July 1988) [172 and 174] (referring at para 172 to responsibility for ‘lack of diligence’ and indicating at para 174 that ‘[t]he State has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations’).

  113. 113.

    See generally: Caroline Henckels, Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration. Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015) 117.

  114. 114.

    RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Ltd. and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à.r.l. v Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30 (30 November 2018) [463].

  115. 115.

    RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Ltd. and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à.r.l. v Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30 (30 November 2018) [465].

  116. 116.

    Caroline Henckels, Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration. Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015) 117.

  117. 117.

    Caroline Henckels, Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration. Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015) 118-9. It should be noted that Henckels defines ‘methods of review’ as ‘trade-off devices that operate as aids to problem solving and to express the reasoning processes of adjudicators’ (at p. 26). Cf. also Nnaemeka Nwokedi Anozie, The Full Security and Protection Due Diligence Obligation (University of Ottawa, Ottawa 2016) [LL.M. Thesis] 20-1 (emphasizing that adjudicators enjoy a broad margin of discretion, and noting the difficulties of defining either reasonableness or due diligence in general terms).

  118. 118.

    For a detailed discussion of this element of analysis see Sect. 13.4.4.

  119. 119.

    See, for example: Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [244 et seq.]. Section 13.4.8 discusses this element of analysis in more detail.

  120. 120.

    Emphasis added. American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.05]. For other arbitral tribunals following a similar approach see: Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [179]; Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [484]; Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [85]. An alternative, less-usual formulation appeared in Joseph Houben v Burundi (2016), where the arbitrators used the French expressions ‘mesures minimales nécessaires’ and ‘diligences nécessaires’ in its assessment of the FPS standard. See: Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [175 and 179]. Investors in investment arbitral proceedings have also invoked the ‘necessary steps’ criterion. For an indicative example see: Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [306].

  121. 121.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [500].

  122. 122.

    Emphasis added. OI European Group B.V. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25 (10 March 2015) [577].

  123. 123.

    Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (adopted 18 April 1961, entered into force 24 April 1964) 500 UNTS 95, arts. 22(2) and 29. For a detailed assessment of these conventional protection obligations see: Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law. Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016) 133-45, 214-6 and 219-20. For another example see: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (adopted 24 April 1963, entered into force 19 March 1967) 596 UNTS 261, art. 31(2) and 40. In the Teheran Hostages case (1980) the ICJ analyzed whether Iran had taken the steps that were ‘appropriate’ and ‘necessary’ to protect the U.S. Embassy and consulates from demonstrators and militants. See: Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep. 3, 31-3 [62-8].

  124. 124.

    The assumption of equivalence between ‘due diligence’ and ‘necessary measures’ has been particularly apparent in the jurisprudence of the ICtHR. See, for example: Familia Barrios v Venezuela, Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 24 November 2011) [124] (indicating that the state’s ‘duty of diligence’ [deber de diligencia] requires the adoption of ‘opportune and necessary measures’ [medidas oportunas y necesarias]); Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia, Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 31 January 2006) [139] (stating that ‘the State did not adopt, with due diligence, all the necessary measures’). The ECtHR often uses the phrase ‘appropriate steps’ in connection with the protection of human rights without express reference to the notion of ‘due diligence’. Cf. L.C.B. v United Kingdom, App No 14/1997/798/1001 (ECtHR: 9 June 1998) [36] (referring to the state’s duty ‘to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life of those within its jurisdiction’); Hiller v Austria, App No 1967/14 (ECtHR: 22 November 2016) [47] (considering the right to life and relying on the L.C.B. decision); Malik Babayev v Azerbaijan, App No 30500/11 (ECtHR: 1 June 2017) [65] (addressing the right to life and quoting the L.C.B. decision in this regard); Paul and Audrey Edwards v United Kingdom, App No 46477/99 (ECtHR: 14 March 2002) [54] (referring to the protection of the right to life and quoting the L.C.B. decision in this regard); Öneryildiz v Turkey, App No 48939/99 (ECtHR: 30 November 2004) [71] (also referring to the right to life and quoting previous decisions on the subject). For a review of the ICtHR jurisprudence in this area see: Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor and Carlos María Pelayo Möller, ‘Artículo 1. Obligación de respetar los derechos’ in Christian Steiner and Patricia Uribe (eds), Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario (Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung/Editorial Temis, Bogotá 2014) 42, 49-53 (commenting on these and other decisions of the ICtHR). For a detailed analysis of protection obligations under the ECHR see: Cordula Dröge, Positive Verpflichtungen der Staaten in der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Springer, Heidelberg 2003) 13-84. (from a general perspective); Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 55 et seq. (considering the practice of the ECtHR); Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 28 et seq. (particularly referring to the ‘appropriate steps’ criterion, as developed by the ECtHR).

  125. 125.

    For a critical analysis of the (similar) terminology used by investment tribunals and human rights bodies in this regard see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 56 et seq. (discussing possible overlaps and extant differences between ‘due diligence’ in the context of FPS claims and ‘appropriate steps’, as understood by the ECtHR). Cf. also: Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 30-1.

  126. 126.

    See generally: Martins Paparinskis, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013) 74-83 and 171-80; Martins Paparinskis, ‘Analogies and Other Regimes of International Law’ in Zachary Douglas, Joost Pauwelyn and Jorge Viñuales (eds), The Foundations of International Investment Law. Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014) 73, 79-81. Section 5.3 discusses this issue in more detail.

  127. 127.

    Section 13.4.10 discusses the specific role other obligations of diligence could have in the assessment of FPS claims.

  128. 128.

    See, for example: UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80]. The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on State Parties to the ICCPR, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (26 May 2004) [8] (referring to the violation of the ICCPR by ‘failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress harm by […] acts by private persons or entities’ – emphasis added).

  129. 129.

    Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 55 et seq. (particularly at pp. 59-60; also quoting the AMT and Teheran Hostages cases at p. 58). See also: Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 32-3.

  130. 130.

    Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 59-60; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 32-3.

  131. 131.

    See the examples mentioned in n. 123 and 124 above.

  132. 132.

    Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 59; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 31.

  133. 133.

    ILC, ‘Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. General Commentary’ (2001) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 2001 31, 76-8 art. 23.

  134. 134.

    On the general non-responsibility rule see Chap. 12.

  135. 135.

    Emphasis added. Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties. Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009) 310. For another author favoring a standard of due diligence which takes into account the circumstances of the host state see: Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 22-3 and 33. For an author rejecting the ‘modified standard of due diligence’ see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 124-6, 151, 233-8 and 278 (also pleading of an ‘objective’ standard at p. 265).

  136. 136.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [76].

  137. 137.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [81] (“My review of the cases and literature leads me […] to adopt the more recent conclusion of Newcombe and Paradell”).

  138. 138.

    Emphasis in the original. Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [82].

  139. 139.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [163] (quoting Pantechniki v Albania in this connection) [163-4].

  140. 140.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [244].

  141. 141.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [244].

  142. 142.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [283-4].

  143. 143.

    Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties. Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009) 310.

  144. 144.

    ‘Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stuphen’ (6 January 1888) in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Volume 6: Government Printing Office, Washington 1906) 961, 962.

  145. 145.

    ‘Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stuphen’ (6 January 1888) in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Volume 6: Government Printing Office, Washington 1906) 961, 962.

  146. 146.

    Emphasis added. Francisco García Amador, ‘International Responsibility: Sixth Report by F. V. García Amador, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/134 and Add. 1)’ (26 January 1961) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1961 1, 47 art. 7.

  147. 147.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153-4].

  148. 148.

    Emphasis added. UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment Treaties: A Review (United Nations, New York/Geneva 2005) 40-1.

  149. 149.

    Biwater Gauff Ltd. v Tanzania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (24 July 2008) 726.

  150. 150.

    The ‘recent cases’ UNCTAD referred to were AAPL v Sri Lanka, AMT v Zaire and Wena Hotels v Egypt. See: UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment Treaties: A Review (United Nations, New York/Geneva 2005) 40-1 and 51-2 n. 38-9.

  151. 151.

    Case of the Steamer Montijo (25 July 1875) in Henri La Fontaine (ed), Pasicrisie Internationale. Histoire documentaire des arbitrages internationaux (Stämpfli & Cie., Bern 1902) 209, 209-20.

  152. 152.

    Emphasis added. Case of the Steamer Montijo (25 July 1875) in Henri La Fontaine (ed), Pasicrisie Internationale. Histoire documentaire des arbitrages internationaux (Stämpfli & Cie., Bern 1902) 209, 219.

  153. 153.

    Cf. Sect. 12.3.

  154. 154.

    Emilio Brusa, ‘Responsabilité des États à raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers en cas d’émeute ou de guerre civile’ (1898) 17 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 96, 105 (stating at pp. 105-6 that this circumstance is relevant, in particular, for the determination of the quantum of compensation).

  155. 155.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [271].

  156. 156.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [77].

  157. 157.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [77].

  158. 158.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [77].

  159. 159.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [76].

  160. 160.

    See Sect. 10.3. Cf. also Sect. 2.2.3.

  161. 161.

    Cf. Chap. 11.

  162. 162.

    Emphasis added. Christina Patton v Mexico (8 July 1931) V RIAA 224, 226-7 [7].

  163. 163.

    For an example of a delay in the administration of justice as the object of an FPS claim see: EDF International S.A., Saur International S.A. and Leon Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23 (11 June 2012) [409]. The tribunal did not address this claim in detail, explaining that ‘[n]othing […] suggests that the amount of damages would be different if based on a theory of denial of justice or absence of full protection and security’ (at para 1112). For an additional example see: Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [286 and 288] (delays allegedly caused by two amparo petitions lodged with local courts; the FPS claim was however unsuccessful).

  164. 164.

    Cf. El Oro Mining and Railway Co. v Mexico (18 June 1931) V RIAA 191, 198 [9-10].

  165. 165.

    Cf. Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [77].

  166. 166.

    Cf. Amelia de Brissot et al. v. United States of Venezuela (26 August 1890) United States and Venezuelan Claims Commission. Opinions Delivered by the Commissioners in the Principal Cases (Gibson Bros., Washington 1890) 457, 486 (opinion of Commissioner Findlay, requiring an ‘honest endeavor’ to punish the offenders) and 482-3 (opinion of Commissioner Little, noting that a state is not responsable for a failure to punish the offenders if ‘[it] did all that could reasonably be required in that behalf’).

  167. 167.

    See Sect. 12.3.

  168. 168.

    Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 131, 188 art. 10. Cf. also: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 54 (underscoring the need for the standard of due diligence to be flexible).

  169. 169.

    Section 6.2 explores the notion of ‘standard’ and considers the difference between the normative structure of ‘standards’ and ‘rules’.

  170. 170.

    Clyde Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law (Klaus Reprint, New York 1970) 88 [first edition: 1928].

  171. 171.

    Francisco García Amador, ‘International Responsibility: Second Report by F. V. García Amador, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/106)’ (15 February 1957) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1957 104, 122 [7].

  172. 172.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18 (14 January 2010) [496].

  173. 173.

    Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [166]. See also: SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [483] (“la protection de l’APRI n’entre en vigueur que lorsque la conduite de l’État, de par sa gravité et sa transcendance, et de par le caractère souverain des actes, est incompatible avec la norme internationale”). This statement of the SAUR tribunal refers to both the FET and the FPS standard.

  174. 174.

    For a detailed analysis of the relevance of the state’s ‘capacity to act’ in the context of FPS claims see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 228 et seq.

  175. 175.

    Cf. Sects. 13.2 and 13.3.3.3.

  176. 176.

    Emphasis added. Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [229].

  177. 177.

    Emphasis added. Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [166].

  178. 178.

    Salvador Prats v United States (undated) 3 Moore’s Arb. 2886, 2894 (considering the issue in particular connection with the obligation to exercise due diligence in the protection of aliens).

  179. 179.

    Salvador Prats v United States (undated) 3 Moore’s Arb. 2886, 2894.

  180. 180.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [89].

  181. 181.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [88-9].

  182. 182.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [90-1].

  183. 183.

    See Sect. 11.2.3. Cf. also Sect. 13.4.9.

  184. 184.

    ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 12.

  185. 185.

    For some examples of academic publications addressing these two elements in connection with the FPS standard see: Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 166-70; Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties regarding Harm Caused by Private Parties’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 13-15; Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 209 et seq. (particularly at pp. 227-8).

  186. 186.

    Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace in Three Books (1625) (The Lawbook Exchange, Clark NJ 2004) 455 [Book 2 Chap. XXI, § II(4)]. Section 12.3.1 discusses this element of the Grotian theory of fault in more detail. The element of ‘awareness’ was also at the heart of Samuel Pufendorf’s theory of state responsibility for acts of individuals, which entailed a presumption of both knowledge about the risk and authorities’ ability to prevent harm (see Sect. 12.3.2.2).

  187. 187.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [78].

  188. 188.

    Green Haywood Hackworth (ed), Digest of International Law (Volume 5: Government Printing Office, Washington 1943) 658. For some comments on the Cutler affair see: Daniel Patrick O’Connell, International Law (Volume 2: Stevens & Sons, London 1970) 968; Richard Lillich and John Paxman, ‘State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens Occasioned by Terrorist Activities’ (1977) 26(2) Am. U. L. Rev. 217, 226-7.

  189. 189.

    Emphasis added. ‘Instruction to the U.S. Embassy to the Kingdom of Italy [concerning the Cutler affair]’ (5 July 1927) in Green Hackworth (ed), Digest of International Law (Volume 5: Government Printing Office, Washington 1943) 660-1.

  190. 190.

    Mexico City Bombardment Claims (15 February 1930) V RIAA 76, 79-80 [6].

  191. 191.

    Mexico City Bombardment Claims (15 February 1930) V RIAA 76, 79-80 [6].

  192. 192.

    Mexico City Bombardment Claims (15 February 1930) V RIAA 76, 80 [6].

  193. 193.

    Emphasis added. Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [325]. For an almost identical statement see: El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [523]. See also: Electrabel S.A. v Hungary, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19 (30 November 2012) [7.83] (quoting El Paso in this connection).

  194. 194.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 18.

  195. 195.

    For a detailed account of the facts see: Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [17 et seq.].

  196. 196.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84].

  197. 197.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [85-7].

  198. 198.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [88].

  199. 199.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [161].

  200. 200.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [164-8].

  201. 201.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [166].

  202. 202.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [171].

  203. 203.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [171].

  204. 204.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [232-4 and 239].

  205. 205.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [241].

  206. 206.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [242].

  207. 207.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [5, 46 et seq. and 235].

  208. 208.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [235].

  209. 209.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [352]. See also the Respondent’s argument at para 267.

  210. 210.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [352].

  211. 211.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [352].

  212. 212.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [353].

  213. 213.

    MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [354-6].

  214. 214.

    For a similar formulation of the non-absolute character of the so-called ‘obligations of event’ see: ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 173 [6] (without making particular reference to the FPS standard). Section 11.2.2.2 discusses the non-absolute character of the FPS standard in more detail.

  215. 215.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [82]. See also: Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [244 and 285] (quoting Pantechniki in this connection).

  216. 216.

    The British-Mexican Claims Commission often used the expression ‘publicly notorious’ on several occasions. For some examples see: Christina Patton v Mexico (8 July 1931) V RIAA 224, 226 [3] and 228 [8] (see also the British Commissioner’s dissenting opinion at p. 229 [4], using the expression ‘common notoriety’); Mexico City Bombardment Claims (15 February 1930) V RIAA 76, 80 [6]; Santa Gertudis Jute Mill Co. Ltd. v Mexico (15 February 1930) V RIAA 108, 112 [9]; William E. Bowerman and Messrs. Burberry’s Ltd. v Mexico (15 February 1930) V RIAA 104, 106 [7]. In some cases, the Commission went as far as to exclude responsibility on grounds that the thread was not of ‘public notoriety’. See, for example: Buena Tierra Mining Co. Ltd. v Mexico (3 August 1931) V RIAA 247, 251-2 [8] (“it has not been proved that there was any negligence on the part of the authorities, nor that the occurrence was of notoriety, nor that it was brought to the notice of the authorities or that they were informed thereof in due time, so as to fix responsibility on them for non-punishment”); George Creswell Delamain v Mexico (10 July 1931) V RIAA 229, 231 [9] (“In the present case they [the Commissioners] have not found any indication that Mr. G. C. Delamain, or his brother, advized (sic) the public authorities of the extortion, of which he had been a victim, nor can it be assumed that this crime, committed on an isolated ranch, was of such public notoriety as to come spontaneously to the knowledge of the authorities.”).

  217. 217.

    See generally: ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 12.

  218. 218.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [235-8 and 283 et seq.].

  219. 219.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [285].

  220. 220.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [286-7, 289-90].

  221. 221.

    Richard Lillich and John Paxman, ‘State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens Occasioned by Terrorist Activities’ (1977) 26(2) Am. U. L. Rev. 217, 241 (particularly referring to the ‘duty to prevent injuries to aliens’ caused by ‘terrorist activities’; the authors, however, also consider likelihood of the injury as an element of the assessment of due diligence).

  222. 222.

    Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep. 3, 32-3 [68].

  223. 223.

    For a detailed account of the facts see: Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [37] et seq.

  224. 224.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [287].

  225. 225.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [287].

  226. 226.

    Emphasis added. Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [314].

  227. 227.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [359].

  228. 228.

    Emphasis added. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [359-60].

  229. 229.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [152].

  230. 230.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [173 et seq.].

  231. 231.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [554].

  232. 232.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [554-6].

  233. 233.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [557] (quoting respondent’s counter-memorial).

  234. 234.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [558].

  235. 235.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [560].

  236. 236.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 1.

  237. 237.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 30.

  238. 238.

    Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [555].

  239. 239.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 29-31.

  240. 240.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 32.

  241. 241.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 34.

  242. 242.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 34.

  243. 243.

    Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia (SCC), Arbitral Award (16 December 2003) 34.

  244. 244.

    Cf. also Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28 (10 March 2014) [432] (rejecting an FPS claim concerning the invasion of physical premises, and noting that the alleged invader ‘came into the site in the belief that […] it could exercise its contractual rights to repossess the site in circumstances where it was the owner of the land’).

  245. 245.

    Helen Palsgraf v The Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) 248 NY 339. See also: Alwyn Freeman, ‘Responsibility of States for Unlawful Acts of their Armed Forces’ (1955) 88(3) RCADI 263, 278. For another author relying on Cardozo’s formulation in the context of international due diligence obligations see: Dinah Shelton, ‘Private Violence, Public Wrongs, and the Responsibility of States’ (1989) 13(1) Fordham Int’l L.J. 1, 23; Dinah Shelton, Regional Protection of Human Rights (Volume 1: Oxford University Press 2010) 358. See also: Lidsey Cameron and Vincent Chetail, Privatizing War. Private Military and Security Companies under Public International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 227 (quoting Freeman).

  246. 246.

    Alwyn Freeman, ‘Responsibility of States for Unlawful Acts of their Armed Forces’ (1955) 88(3) RCADI 263, 278.

  247. 247.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 132.

  248. 248.

    See, for example: Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 170.

  249. 249.

    See, for example: Joanna Kulesza, Due Diligence in International Law (Brill, Leiden 2016) 259 (particularly referring to the obligation to prevent transboundary harm).

  250. 250.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [26 and 174 et seq.].

  251. 251.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [25-7].

  252. 252.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [467, 508 and 511].

  253. 253.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [511].

  254. 254.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [511] (particularly referring to the prohibition of internal communications and the confiscation of personal belongings).

  255. 255.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [501].

  256. 256.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [511].

  257. 257.

    See generally: Sergey Ripinsky and Kevin Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London 2008) 326 and 350.

  258. 258.

    Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “Wer in einem Lande sich niederläßt, in dem Unruhen zu befürchten sind, nimmt eben das Risiko auf sich, das auch die Angehörigen des Landes selbst tragen.” Reichstag, ‘Protokoll – 68. Sitzung’ (16 March 1893) Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichtags, VIII. Legislaturperiode, II. Session 1892/3 (Volume 3: Verlag der Norddeutschen Buchdruckerei, Berlin 1893) 1671, 1672.

  259. 259.

    ‘In Memoriam: Ludwig von Bar’ (1914) 8(2) AJIL 346, 346-7.

  260. 260.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [154].

  261. 261.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [82].

  262. 262.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [82]. For another Albanian case in which the tribunal took into consideration that, at the time of making its investment, the investor was aware of the situation of the host country see: Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24 (30 March 2015) [822] (emphasizing that ‘Claimant decided to make its investment under these conditions of insecurity’).

  263. 263.

    See: East Mediterranean Gas Co. S.A.E. v Egyptian General Petroleum Corp., Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Co. and Israel Electric Corp., Final Award, ICC Case No. 18215/GZ/MHM (4 December 2015). The award was issued in one of several parallel commercial and investment arbitrations referring to the same factual background, including the ICSID case Ampal v Egypt (2017). The ICC award is not public. The present work relies on lengthy excerpts from the ICC award reproduced in the Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss issued in Ampal v Egypt (2017). For an overview of the commercial arbitrations see: Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (1 February 2016) [10 et seq.]; Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [8-10 and 15].

  264. 264.

    See n. 263 above.

  265. 265.

    East Mediterranean Gas Co. S.A.E. v Egyptian General Petroleum Corp., Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Co. and Israel Electric Corp., Final Award, ICC Case No. 18215/GZ/MHM (4 December 2015) [760] (reproduced at p. 62 of the Ampal decision; see n. 263 above).

  266. 266.

    For a detailed account of the facts see: Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [84 et seq.].

  267. 267.

    Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [817].

  268. 268.

    Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [818].

  269. 269.

    Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [818].

  270. 270.

    Author’s translation. The original Spanish text reads: “[los cambios legislativos] convierten a España en un país carente de seguridad jurídica para los inversores lo que provoca nuestro descredito internacional.” Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [818] (quoting the lawsuit filed by Isolux Corsán S.A. before the Spanish Supreme Court of Justice).

  271. 271.

    Author’s translation. The original Spanish text reads: “Una parte que decide invertir en un país que, según ella, carece de seguridad jurídica, no puede después quejarse que tal seguridad no le fue asegurada.” Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [818].

  272. 272.

    Alasdair Ross Anderson et al. v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3 (19 May 2010) [58] (considering the issue in connection with the requirement that foreign investors to diligently ensure that their activities fulfill local legislation; for the sake of accuracy, the tribunal was not addressing an FPS claim at this point).

  273. 273.

    Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [194]. It should be noted that, in the Plama arbitration, the investor raised various FPS claims, each of which was related to a different factual aspect of the case.

  274. 274.

    Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [220, 222]. The arbitral tribunal followed a similar line of argument in respect of another FPS claim (at paras 270-1).

  275. 275.

    Garanti Koza LLP v Turkmenistan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20 (19 December 2016) [324]. In this case, the tribunal refrained from addressing these arguments, noting that the FPS claim was ‘duplicative’ of the ‘other claimed breaches of the BIT’ (at para 392).

  276. 276.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [448].

  277. 277.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [449].

  278. 278.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [449].

  279. 279.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [449].

  280. 280.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [451].

  281. 281.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [451].

  282. 282.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [450-1].

  283. 283.

    Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [47].

  284. 284.

    Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [243].

  285. 285.

    Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [244].

  286. 286.

    Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [244].

  287. 287.

    Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [246-7].

  288. 288.

    Tenaris S.A. and Talta-Trading E Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26 (29 January 2016) [426].

  289. 289.

    Tenaris S.A. and Talta-Trading E Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26 (29 January 2016) [446].

  290. 290.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [239 and 251]. It should be noted that this was one of multiple FPS claims that were raised in the case.

  291. 291.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [251].

  292. 292.

    Waguih George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (1 June 2009) [446].

  293. 293.

    Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [236].

  294. 294.

    Emphasis added. Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [236].

  295. 295.

    Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [248-55].

  296. 296.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [285].

  297. 297.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [288].

  298. 298.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [288] (“To be sure, the Tribunal wishes to make clear that it does not accept Respondent’s argument that the delay and frustration, of which Claimants complain, was caused in its entirety by Claimants’ own strenuous and repeated recourse to administrative and judicial challenges. But neither does it find persuasive evidence that Respondent has failed to provide Claimants or their investments with full protection and security”).

  299. 299.

    See Chap. 5.

  300. 300.

    See Sects. 4.2 and 4.3.

  301. 301.

    See Sect. 5.4.

  302. 302.

    For a respondent state underscoring the absence of differential treatment in the context of an FPS claim see: Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [74-5].

  303. 303.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [154].

  304. 304.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [154].

  305. 305.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [154] (“il n’a pas été prouvé par les Demanderesses que leur chantier bénéficiait d’un traitement discriminatoire par rapport aux autres chantiers en Algérie. Enfin, les décisions prises par l’Etat algérien en matière de sécurité ne sont pas arbitraires.”).

  306. 306.

    For an analysis of this award from the standpoint of complicity see: Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties regarding Harm Caused by Private Parties’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 8.

  307. 307.

    Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [35]. Section 13.3.2 also discusses the analysis of diligence conducted by the Tecmed tribunal.

  308. 308.

    Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [176]. For a similar approach see: Eureko B.V. v Poland (Ad Hoc Arbitration), Partial Award (19 August 2005) [237]. Cf. also: Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [258 and 262].

  309. 309.

    Cf. Sects. 12.4.1 and 12.4.3.

  310. 310.

    Cf. also Sect. 12.4.1 (on the notion of ‘indirect responsibility’).

  311. 311.

    Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [1-12].

  312. 312.

    Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [669-70].

  313. 313.

    See Sect. 12.4.1et seq.

  314. 314.

    See Sect. 12.4.3.

  315. 315.

    Emphasis added. Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [85] (see also para 84 in this connection).

  316. 316.

    Section 8.3.2.4 discusses the distinction between responsibility for the actions of host state agents supporting private wrongdoers, and omissions in the prevention and redress of private injuries.

  317. 317.

    Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [648].

  318. 318.

    Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [649-50].

  319. 319.

    Clyde Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law (Klaus Reprint, New York 1970) 92 [first edition: 1928]. Cf. also: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 137 (commenting on the Eureko v Poland case and noting that ‘[i]f a State authors or instigates conduct which causes damage, then that will constitute persuasive evidence that it has failed to act with due diligence’).

  320. 320.

    For a detailed account of the facts of the case see: OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [55 et seq.]. On the ‘corporate raid’ see particularly [69].

  321. 321.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [63 et seq.]. The presence of the Ministry of Interior’s troops is described in detail at [123-5].

  322. 322.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [69]. See also [99].

  323. 323.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [416-7, 421-2 and 428].

  324. 324.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [124].

  325. 325.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [125].

  326. 326.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [428].

  327. 327.

    OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [428].

  328. 328.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [173 and 179].

  329. 329.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [175 and 179].

  330. 330.

    Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [157].

  331. 331.

    State entities may certainly enter into contractual obligations to provide special protection to an investment, but the degree of protection required under such obligations does not necessarily coincide with that required under the FPS standard. Cf. Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [659] (distinguishing between the degree of protection required under a concession agreement and the protection required under the FPS standard).

  332. 332.

    On the possible conflict between different rights or interests; cf. also: Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 24-5.

  333. 333.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.1.2].

  334. 334.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2].

  335. 335.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2].

  336. 336.

    Emphasis added. AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2]. See also: Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [817] (quoting this passage of the AES award).

  337. 337.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [34 and 233-4].

  338. 338.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [239].

  339. 339.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [244-5 and 247-9].

  340. 340.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [135 and 486].

  341. 341.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [488].

  342. 342.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [485-8].

  343. 343.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [490].

  344. 344.

    Emphasis added. Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [490]. See also the Tribunal’s conclusion at para 505.

  345. 345.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [535 et seq., 551 et seq. and 596].

  346. 346.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [610].

  347. 347.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [606].

  348. 348.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84-8].

  349. 349.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84 and 88-90].

  350. 350.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [92].

  351. 351.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [92].

  352. 352.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [92].

  353. 353.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [92].

  354. 354.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [92-4].

  355. 355.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84 and 95].

  356. 356.

    ILC, ‘Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. General Commentary’ (2001) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 2001 31, 36 art. 3 (Commentary) [1]. See also: Zachary Douglas, ‘The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2003) 74 BYIL 151, 199. Cf. also Sect. 13.4.9.

  357. 357.

    For some examples see: American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.06] (underscoring the importance of municipal law without digging deeper into the issue); Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [323] (referring to the FPS clause of the Moldova-Russian Federation BIT, which makes express reference to municipal law, and quoting the AMT award in this connection); Iurii Bogdanov et al. v Moldova (SCC), Arbitral Award (22 September 2005) 15 (referring to the FPS clause of the Moldova-Russian Federation BIT, which makes express reference to municipal law); Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [286] (discussed later in this section); SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [508-10] (discussed later in this section). Section 14.3 discusses the interpretation of FPS clauses making express reference to municipal law in more detail.

  358. 358.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [508 and 510].

  359. 359.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [508 and 510].

  360. 360.

    SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [509-10].

  361. 361.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [285].

  362. 362.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [285-6].

  363. 363.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [286].

  364. 364.

    See generally Sect. 12.1. For an author addressing the possible synergies and contradictions between the law of armed conflict and the FPS standard see: Ofilio Mayorga, Arbitrating War: Military Necessity as a Defense to the Breach of Investment Treaty Obligations (Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Cambridge MA 2013) 1-10 (arguing that, in situations such as counterinsurgency operations, arbitrators applying the FPS standard should seek guidance in the law of armed conflict; Mayorga additionally submits that states should be allowed to invoke, for example, ‘military necessity’). Cf. also Petr Stejskal, ‘War: Foreign Investments in Danger – Can International Humanitarian Law or Full Protection and Security Always Save It?’ (2017) 8 CYIL 529, 529 et seq. On the interplay between human rights obligations and the FPS standard cf. Maria Fanou and Vassilis Tzevelekos, ‘The Shared Territory of the ECHR and International Investment Law’ in Yannick Radi (ed), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Investment (Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton MA 2018) 93, 127-8.

  365. 365.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [232].

  366. 366.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [230].

  367. 367.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [230].

  368. 368.

    Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [244].

  369. 369.

    See, for example: Gonzalez Llui et al. v Ecuador, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 1 September 2015) [293-327 and 339-40] (referring to due diligence in the context of both criminal and civil judicial proceedings); Masacre de las Dos Erres v Guatemala, Judgment on Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 24 November 2009) [136-49 and 233(c)] (in reference to failures to investigate a massacre); Rosendo Cantú et al. v Mexico, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 31 August 2010) [168 et seq. and 177-82] (referring to due diligence in the investigation and punishment of sexual violence against women, in connection with article 8 of the AHRC and article 7.b of the Belem do Pará Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women); Suárez Peralta v Ecuador, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (ICtHR: 21 May 2013) [94-106] (particularly referring to due diligence in criminal proceedings).

  370. 370.

    Humen v Poland, App No 26614/95 (ECtHR: 15 October 1999) [67-9] (considering the issue of due diligence in the conduct of judicial proceedings); Rumpf v Germany, App No 46344/06 (ECtHR: 2 September 2010) [41-46] (referring to delay in the administration of justice as a possible violation of the due process clause enshrined in article 6(1) of the ECHR, and making particular reference to due diligence at para 44). See also the ECtHR’s case law on article 5 of the ECHR (right to liberty and security): A et al. v United Kingdom, App No 3455/05 (ECtHR: 19 February 2009) [164] (referring to due diligence in the commencement of extradition or deportation proceedings); Khalifa et al. v Italy, App No 16483/12 (ECtHR: 15 December 2016) [90] (considering the issue of due diligence in the prosecution of extradition or deportation, and the avoidance of unreasonably lengthy detention before trial); Kudła v Poland, App No 30219/96 (ECtHR: 26 October 2000) [106-17] (referring to reasonable duration of detention before trial under article 5(3) of the ECHR, and analyzing local authorities’ due diligence in this connection).

  371. 371.

    Mondev International v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002) [140].

  372. 372.

    Mondev International v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002) [141-3].

  373. 373.

    Mondev International v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002) [144]. Cf. also: Sebastián Mantilla Blanco, Justizielles Unrecht im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016) 82-3.

  374. 374.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [149].

  375. 375.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [150].

  376. 376.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [149-57].

  377. 377.

    Brumărescu v Romania, App No 28342/95 (ECtHR: 28 October 1999).

  378. 378.

    Brumărescu v Romania, App No 28342/95 (ECtHR: 28 October 1999) [56 et seq.].

  379. 379.

    Brumărescu v Romania, App No 28342/95 (ECtHR: 28 October 1999) [62]. In Spyridon Roussalis v Romania investor invoked this particular passage of the Brumărescu decision. See: Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [156-7].

  380. 380.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [275]. The host state also addressed the specifics of the Brumărescu decision at paras 270-1, pointing out the differences between that case and the one submitted to the arbitral tribunal.

  381. 381.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [259-65].

  382. 382.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [261].

  383. 383.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [263].

  384. 384.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [331].

  385. 385.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [312] (particularly referring to the possibility of applying human rights instruments through the non-derogation clause set forth in article 10 of the BIT).

  386. 386.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [348-59].

  387. 387.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [358].

  388. 388.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [359].

  389. 389.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [359].

  390. 390.

    ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 4. It should be noted, however, that the ILA considers that due diligence is, at the same time, a ‘general principle […] underlying more specific rules of due diligence’ which, in any case, does not contradict ‘more specific expressions of due diligence in sub-branches of international law’ (at p. 6).

  391. 391.

    See Chap. 5.

  392. 392.

    See Sects. 13.3.2 and 13.3.3.

  393. 393.

    Cf. Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [312] (stating, in general reference to the Greece-Romania BIT, that the ‘level of protection’ granted under the BIT was higher than that afforded under the ECHR). See also para 364.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bonn, Germany

    Sebastián Mantilla Blanco

Authors
  1. Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mantilla Blanco, S. (2019). Due Diligence in the Context of ‘Full Protection and Security’ Claims. In: Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24837-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24838-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation