The conclusion of contracts between investors and host States is a common feature in international investment law. In many disputes, such investment agreements play a major role. The existence of such contractual agreements and the claims arising in the investment disputes surrounding them, have given rise to a plethora of legal issues, which will be addressed in this contribution. Initially, it is necessary to distinguish between breaches of a treaty and breaches of contract. Not every breach of a contract by a State amounts to a breach of international law. There is a large body of case law setting out the line at which a breach of contract under domestic law amounts also to a breach of international law. This can either be due to the specific circumstances of the breach or to the existence of an umbrella clause. Cases involving breaches of contract invariably also have given rise to complex disputes about the jurisdiction of the treaty-based tribunal deciding on them. The main questions have focused on whether such tribunals can hear claims based on the breach of a contract as a preliminary question to determining a breach of a treaty, the jurisdiction of treaty-based tribunals to hear claims for the breach of contracts not amounting to breaches of international law and the relevance of contractually agreed dispute resolution provisions. None of the above questions have yet produced uniform answers. There are, however, certain approaches depending whether the applicable investment treaty provide for an “umbrella clause”, or the investment treaty has a limited rationae materie scope of protection. These aspects will be discussed in this article.



Încheierea contractelor între investitorii străini și statele-gazdă este o practică comună a dreptului internațional al investițiilor. Existența raporturilor contractuale în disputele investiționale au dat naștere la o mulțime de probleme juridice, care vor fi abordate în acest articol. Inițial, este necesar să se facă distincția dintre încălcarea unei obligații prevăzute de un tratat investițional și încălcarea obligațiilor contractuale încheiate între investitorul străin şi statul-gazdă. Nu orice încăl­care a unui contract de către un stat reprezintă o încălcare a dreptului internațional. O parte din jurisprudența investițională stabilește abordarea, conform căreia o încălcare a contractului în conformitate cu legislația internă echivalează cu o încălcare a dreptului internațional. Acest lucru poate fi cauzat fie de circumstanțele specifice ale încălcării, fie de existența unei clauze umbrelă. Cazurile care implică încălcări ale contractului au generat, de asemenea, invariabil dispute complexe cu privire la competența tribunalului bazat pe un tratat investițional care decide asupra unei pretenții contractuale. Principalele probleme sunt dacă aceste tribunale pot examina cereri bazate pe încălcarea unui contract ca o problemă preliminară pentru determi­narea încălcării obligațiilor ce reies dintr-un tratat investițional, competenței tribunalelor bazate pe tratate de a soluționa pretențiile contractuale care nu constituie încălcări ale dreptului internațional și aplicabilităţii clauzei de selecție a forului în materie de soluționare a litigiilor contractuale. Niciuneia dintre întrebările de mai sus nu i s-au dat deocamdată răspunsuri uniforme. Există, totuși, anumite abordări care depind de faptul dacă tratatul investițional aplicabil prevede o „clauză umbrelă” sau dacă scopul de protecție ratione materiae a tratatului prevede anumite limitări. Aceste aspecte vor fi discutate in articol.


investment protection, contract claims, observance of investment undertakings, investment arbitration, scope of protection.

Full Text:



Affaire Martini (Italy v. Venezuela), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol.II, p.975-1008, Award 3 May 1930.

Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Decision no146, U.S. 387, 5 December1892.

International Fisheries Company v. United Mexican States, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol.IV, p.691-746, Award July 1931.

CRAWFORD, J. Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration, Arbitration International, vol.24, 2008.

DOUGLAS, Z. The International Law of Investment Claims, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/01/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003.

SCHREUER, Ch. Traveling the BIT Route: of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, vol.5, 2005.

NEWCOMBE, A., PARADELL, L. Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards, Kluwer Law International, 2009.

SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case no. ARB/01/13, Decision on objections to jurisdiction, 6 August 2003.

Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case no ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004.

Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/02/16, Award, 28 September 2007.

SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of Philippines, ICSID Case no. ARB/02/6, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004.

Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V v. The Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case no.ARB/07/9, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction, 29 May 2009.

Toto Costruzioni Generali S.P.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case no.ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009.

SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. The Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case no. ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 February 2010.

Fedax N.V v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICISD Case no.ARB/96/3, Award, 9 March 1998.

Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, 12 October 2005.

Eureko BV v. Poland, Partial Award, 19 August 2005.

GAILLARD, E. L’arbitrage sur le fondement des traits de protection des investissements, Revue de l’Arbitrage, 2003.

Pan American Energy LLC, and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICISD Case no.ARB/03/13, Decision on preliminary objections, 27 July 2006.

El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006.

S.S. Wimbledon (U.K. v. Japan), PCIJ 1923.

Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited Inc. and AS Baltoil v. The Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case no.ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001.

James Crawford The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006.

Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no.ARB/02/8, Award, 17 January 2007.

Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No.ARB/07/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005.

Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A. Ş. v. Pakistan, ICSID Case no.ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005.

Christer Söderlund, Lis Pendens, Res Judicata and the Issue of Parallel Judicial Proceedings, Vol 22 Journal of International Arbiteration, 2005.

Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Interpretation of Treaties: How do arbitral tribunals interpret dispute settlement provisions embodied in investment treaties? In Loukas A. Mistelis and Julian D.M. Lew (eds), Persuasive Problems in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Library, Volume 15, 2006.

Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006.

Pantechniki S.A Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case no.ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009.

Compania de Augas del Aconquija S.A and Vivendi Universal S.A v. Argentie Republic, ICISD case no.ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002.

Emilio Augistin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICISD Case no.ARB/97/7, Award, 13 November 2000.

Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case no.ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008.

Salini Construttori S.p.A and Italstrade S.p.A v. The Hashmetie Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case no. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 November 2004.


  • There are currently no refbacks.