International Arbitration - ICSID Jurisdiction under NAFTA - Bayview Irrigation District V. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/1, Award 19 June 2007
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) protects and investors. (1) Under this chapter, citizen of the ratifying parties may seek redress for violations of NAFTA through international arbitration mechanisms. (2) In Bayview Irrigation District v. United Mexican States, (3) an International Centre for the Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) tribunal considered whether NAFTA granted it jurisdiction over the claims brought by Bayview Irrigation District (Bayview). (4) The arbitral panel concluded that Bayview had not invested in Mexico under NAFTA's definition, and, therefore, the panel lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of Bayview's claims against Mexico. (5) In December 1992, Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed onto NAFTA. (6) Along with many other policy objectives animating from this agreement, there is a desire to create clear and mutually advantageous rules governing ... trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. (7) To this end, Chapter 11 of NAFTA sets forth standards for treatment of by nationals of a state, including provisions for expropriation and compensation, as well as an arbitral mechanism for dispute resolution. (8) Bayview, along with other named claimants, requested, by cover letter dated January 19, 2005, the institution of arbitration proceedings at ICSID pursuant to NAFTA against the United Mexican States (Mexico). (9) Applying Texas case law, Bayview argued that it obtained property rights in Mexican waters through a bilateral treaty between Mexico and the United States. (10) Bayview further alleged that measures taken by Mexico with regard to relevant rivers deprived Bayview of its rights under that treaty and gave rise to a claim under NAFTA. (11) Upon the Secretary-General of ICSID's invitation, the parties constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal. (12) Prior to reaching the substantive issues, however, the tribunal preliminarily considered matter of jurisdiction. (13) Chapter 11 creates obligations amongst states to honor certain standards with regard to foreign investment made by nationals of another state. (14) Article 1101 defines the scope of these substantive protections: article 1101(a) extends them to investors of another Party, and article 1101(b) extends them to investments of of another Party in the territory of the Party. (15) Investment is further defined by Article 1139 to include property interests acquired in states. (16) Article 1101(a) is silent with regard to where the investors of another party must have their to qualify for Chapter 11 protections. (17) The states, however, unanimously interpret Chapter 11 as providing substantive protection to foreign made by nationals of states; no protection is afforded citizens of states investing within their own nations, even where other states' actions might affect this investment. (18) Moreover, as the tribunal notes, a contrary interpretation would lead to the perverse result that NAFTA would provide better protection to foreign than is accorded domestic by domestic laws. (19) In 1944 Mexico and the United States entered into a treaty that mandates an allotment of water to each from the Rio Grande. (20) The treaty also provides a list of use priorities as a guide for water allotment policy and vests the International Border and Water Commission (IBWC) with the authority to enforce the treaty. (21) The seminal decision issued by a Texas court construing this treaty held that the treaty does not afford individual U.S. citizens riparian and appropriative rights over the water allocated to the United States by treaty. (22) Rather, the Texas legislature and courts retained authority to determine the amount of water afforded each irrigation district. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».