Subtitle

Septiembre 2012
Emilio Gmez
HL House Style
Orden pblico, derecho internacional y
arbitraje inversionistas-Estado
Alejandro Lpez Ortiz. Hogan Lovells International LLP, Madrid
Quito, 18 de octubre de 2012
www.hoganlovells.com
Derecho internacional impone obligaciones a los Estados en
reas de inters pblico
Derechos humanos
Proteccin del medio ambiente
Proteccin de intereses culturales
Lucha contra la corrupcin y el blanqueo de capitales, etc.
Imponen a los Estados la obligacin de respetar y hacer respetar
en sus territorios
Interaccin con obligaciones relativas a la inversin extranjera
1. Coincidencia
2. Inversiones que infringen normas de derecho internacional
3. Conflicto de obligaciones para los Estados
4. Problemas derivados del procedimiento de resolucin de disputas
TPI se remiten al derecho internacional
2
www.hoganlovells.com
1. Coincidencia
TPI imponen obligaciones coincidentes con obligaciones de
derecho internacional
Derechos humanos:
Derecho de propiedad (y limitaciones a la expropiacin)
Artculo 17 Declaracin Derechos Humanos
Artculo 21 CADH
Artculo 1 Protocolo Adicional CEDH
Derecho a proceso debido (forma parte del trato justo y equitativo)
Artculo 10 Declaracin Derechos Humanos
Artculo 8 CADH
Artculo 6 CEDH
Auxilio en la interpretacin de conceptos en arbitrajes
inversionista-Estado
Azurix c. Argentina, Laudo CIADI, 2006
ADC c. Hungra, Laudo CIADI, 2006
3
www.hoganlovells.com
2. Inversiones que infringen derecho
internacional
TPI: inversin debe cumplir legalidad domstica e internacional
Plama Consortium c. Bulgaria, Laudo CIADI 2008
"Unlike a number of Bilateral Investment Treaties, the ECT does not contain a provision
requiring the conformity of the Investment with a particular law. This does not mean,
however, that the protections provided for by the ECT cover all kinds of investments,
including those contrary to domestic or international law"
Inceysa Vallisoletana c. El Salvador, Laudo CIADI 2006
Phoenix Action Ltd. c. Repblica Checa, Laudo CIADI 2009
"nobody would suggest that ICSID protection should be granted to investments made in
violation of the most fundamental rules of protection of human rights, like investments made
in pursuance of torture or genocide or in support of slavery or trafficking of human organs"
World Duty Free c. Kenya, Laudo CIADI 2006
Kardassopoulos c. Georgia, Laudo CIADI 2007
[The relevant BIT could not be interpreted] "to allow a State to preclude an investor from
seeking protection under the BIT on the ground that its own actions are illegal under its own
laws. In other words, a State cannot avoid jurisdiction under the BIT by invoking its own
failure to comply with its domestic law"
4
www.hoganlovells.com
3. Conflicto de obligaciones para los Estados
Conflicto de obligaciones internacionales: cmo resolver?
Artculo 53 CVDT: nulidad de tratados contrarios a normas de ius
cogens
Alegacin por Estado como defensa en arbitrajes:
S.D. Myers. Inc. c. Canad, Laudo UNCITRAL 2000
Conflicto con tratado en materia de medio ambiente: rechazado
"where a state can achieve its chosen level of environmental protection through a variety
of equally effective and reasonable means, it is obliged to adopt the alternative that is
most consistent with open trade"
SPPE c. Egipto, Laudo CIADI 1992
Conflicto con Convencin UNESCO: rechazado
Glamis Gold c. Estados Unidos, Laudo UNCITRAL 2009
Conflicto con libertad religiosa
Suez et. al c. Argentina, Laudo CIADI 2010 (entre otros)
Conflicto con obligaciones en materia de derecho fundamental al agua: rechazado
"Argentina is subject to both international obligations, i.e. human rights and treaty
obligations, and must respect both of them. Under the circumstances of this case,
Argentinas human rights obligations and its investment treaty obligations are not
inconsistent, contradictory, or mutually exclusive. Thus, as was discussed above,
Argentina could have respected both types of obligations"
5
www.hoganlovells.com
Estado de necesidad / medidas no precluidas
CMS c. Argentina, Laudo CIADI 2005 (similar: Siemens, Enron, Sempra)
Estado de necesidad por obligacin de garantizar derechos humanos en situacin de
emergencia: rechazo
LG&E c. Argentina, Laudo CIADI 2006 (similar: Continental Casualty)
Estado de necesidad por obligacin de garantizar derechos humanos en situacin de
emergencia: admisin parcial
Casos de expropiacin
Expropiacin requiere indemnizacin, incluso por inters pblico:
Compaa de Desarrollo Santa Elena c. Costa Rica, Laudo CIADI 2000
Metalclad c. Mxico, Laudo CIADI 2000
Tecmed c. Mxico, Laudo CIADI 2003
Siemens c. Argentina, Laudo CIADI 2007
Exclusin de indemnizacin:
Saluka c. Repblica Checa, Laudo UNCITRAL 2006
"the principle that a State does not commit an expropriation and is thus not liable to pay
compensation to a dispossessed alien investor when it adopts general regulations that
are commonly accepted as within the police power of States forms part of customary
international law today"
Methanex c. Estados Unidos, Laudo UNCITRAL 2005
"[i]t is a principle of customary international law that, where economic injury results from
a bona fide regulation within the police powers of a State, compensation is not required"
6
www.hoganlovells.com
Previsin de defensas en los TPI (medidas no precluidas)
Clusula emergencia / necesidad (TBI US-Argentina)
Derechos humanos / medio ambiente / responsabilidad social corporativa /
salud pblica (Borrador TBI Modelo de Noruega; TBI Espaa-Libia; TBI
Suiza-Uruguay)
7
www.hoganlovells.com
4. Problemas derivados del procedimiento de
resolucin de disputas
Transparencia?
Intervencin de "amicus curiae"
Grupo de Trabajo II de UNCITRAL: borrador de
Reglas de Transparencia para arbitrajes
inversionista-Estado sobre la base de tratados
8
www.hoganlovells.com
Hogan Lovells has offices in:
Abu Dhabi
Alicante
Amsterdam
Baltimore
Beijing
Berlin
Brussels
Budapest*
Caracas
Colorado Springs
Denver
Dubai
Dusseldorf
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanoi
Ho Chi Minh City
Hong Kong
Houston
Jakarta*
Jeddah*
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Miami
Milan
Moscow
Munich
New York
Northern Virginia
Paris
Philadelphia
Prague
Riyadh*
Rome
San Francisco
Shanghai
Silicon Valley
Singapore
Tokyo
Ulaanbaatar
Warsaw
Washington DC
Zagreb*
"Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses.
The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are
designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members.
For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see www.hoganlovells.com.
Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. Attorney Advertising.
Hogan Lovells 2012. All rights reserved.
*Associated offices