Magnifier Search

Salini v. Jordan

Type of decisionDecision on Jurisdiction
Date of decision15 November 2004
Tribunal
Gilbert Guillaume (President)
Bernardo M. Cremades
Ian Sinclair
Legal instrumentBIT between Italy and Jordan (2001)
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
Articles 31 to 33 of VCLT are declaratory of existing customary international law
MFN does not apply to dispute settlement provisions. The clause cannot be used to create the jurisdictional basis for a tribunal to hear contract claims.
Umbrella clauses have to be distinguished from other clauses, in particular clauses which merely commit the State to create a legal framework also apt to guarantee inter alia compliance with undertakings assumed with regard to specific investors
It is the effect of clauses concerning dispute settlement mechanisms foreseen in investment agreements that they cover claims based on contracts, but not such based on IITs (including breaches of those provisions of the IIT guaranteeing fulfilment of contracts signed with foreign investors)
Investment agreement procedure clauses do not only refer to questions of amicable settlement
How to understand the term “entity” within clauses concerning dispute settlement mechanisms foreseen in investment agreements
At the jurisdictional stage, a tribunal must establish whether the facts alleged by the claimant, if established, are capable of coming within those provisions of the IIT which the claimant has invoked
Articles 31 to 33 of VCLT are declaratory of existing customary international law
General statement regarding the requirements of Article 25 (3) ICSID Convention

Feedback

Above you will find 8 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!