Magnifier Search

IBM v. Ecuador

Type of decisionDecision on jurisdiction and competence
Date of decision22 December 2003
Tribunal
Rodrigo Jijón Letort (President)
Alejandro Ponce Martínez
León Roldós Aguilera (dissenting)
Legal instrumentBIT between Ecuador and USA (1997)
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
A state cannot rely on its national legislation to justify a breach of an international obligation
The interpretation of an IIT must take into account its purpose
If the investment is a contract, a tribunal does not examine the contract's alleged nullity at the procedural stage; prima facie evidence of the existence of the contract is sufficient
A state cannot rely on its national legislation to justify a breach of an international obligation
The interpretation of an IIT must take into account its purpose
The consent for arbitration can be expressed in several ways
Consent can be based on the IIT
If the investment is a contract, a tribunal does not examine the contract's alleged nullity at the procedural stage; prima facie evidence of the existence of the contract is sufficient
The exhaustion of local remedies rule does not apply to claims under an IIT if the state did not qualify its consent
Rule 2(1)(d)(iii) ICSID Institution Rules is not applicable if the claimant is a shareholder of a juridical person having the nationality of the host state

Feedback

Above you will find 7 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!