Site Loader

1 Student at Bilgi University Law Faculty, 11451002

2 National Grid PLC. V. The Argentina

3 I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention
on the law of Treaties (1984)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This way of
interpretation is also in line with the article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties which regulates the interpretation of the international
treaties.

While
determining whether parties intended the MFN clause to include the dispute resolution
provisions or not, we may take into account the preparatory stage of the
drafting of the BIT’s. Here it is not suggested that the sole interpretation of
the preparatory stage of the drafting of the agreement is enough to reveal the
parties’ intention, however drafting stage of the contract is a supplementary tool
to reveal parties intention. As an example of this is the Free Trade of the
Americas agreement, while at time of the drafting the agreement, parties
explicitly stated that “the MFN clause
does not encompass the international dispute resolution mechanism”. This intention
is showed before the signing of the agreement. However, if this is not taken
this into account and a sole interpretation from the purpose of the agreement
is made, then parties’ intentions are going to be denied. This is why it is
critical to consider all relevant circumstances. Additionally, as the agreement
suggests, explicit exclusion of the dispute resolution clause is not the only
way to understand the parties’ intension to exclude it.

While determining
the common intention of the parties all relevant circumstances including the
negotiations, preparatory stages, any practices which the parties have
established between the parties should be taken into account. Only this way, we
can reveal the real intention of the parties.  

In contrary,
this way of interpretation shouldn’t be used while determining the scope of the
MFN clause. Otherwise the result will always be the same because there is no
such BIT that is not aiming to protect the investor. This way of interpreting
however denies the parties’ intentions. Thus, it is a “risk that the placing of undue emphasis on the object and the purpose of a treaty will encourage teleological
methods of interpretation which, in some of its more extreme forms, will even deny the relevance of the
intention of the parties”.3
In this point of view, interpreting the clause according to all relevant
circumstances is the only way to come to the conclusion that the MFN clause
does not cover the dispute resolution clause.

The reason
behind signing a BIT is to protect investors. The whole International
Investment aims to create an investor friendly habitat. Having this in mind, if
we try to make an interpretation according to the main purpose of the BIT’s, it
is almost impossible to conclude that the MFN clause does not cover the dispute
resolution clause. Since the reason of having a dispute resolution clause is also
to protect investors, an interpretation in the light of the purpose will always
be in favor of the investor.

b-      Interpretation
of the MFN Clause According to All Relevant Circumstances 

To summarize
the drafting part, the scope of the MFN clause is ambiguous unless the matters
are explicitly excluded. One may always are argue that the MFN clause covers
the dispute settlement provisions unless they are clearly excluded. Since the
international practice and the Tribunal reviews are inconsistent with each
other it is not healthy to make an interpretation just from the wording of the
clause.

The third
way to draft a MFN clause is to exclude the dispute resolution clause
explicitly without a doubt. In this way of drafting, parties may either draft a
broad clause or may list the matters to be included as long as they explicitly
exclude the dispute resolution clause. As an example of this is the article 4/3
of the Spain-Argentina BIT. As the article states that “the treatment shall not extend
to the privileges which either Party…” The wording of the article 4/3
of the Spain-Argentina BIT clearly suggest that the matters listed are not in
the scope of the MFN clause. However, such an article also suggest that the
matters are not excluded are actually included vice versa. Accordingly, while analyzing
the Spain-Argentina BIT in the Suez-AWG case, tribunal stated that the dispute
resolution clause is not counted among the excluded matters. Therefore the MFN
clause covers the dispute resolution clause. A similar view is also adopted by
the Tribunal in the National Grid case National
Grid PLC. V. The Argentina. In the case at hand the Tribunal stated that “specific mention of an item excludes others”2.
?f the dispute resolution clause is not counted in the list of the exclude matters,
then it shall be included.

The differences
between the interpretations of the scope of the MFN clauses creates an
ambiguity. One of the interpretation tools to interpret a clause is the
international practice. However, international practice is not consistent for
this issue.

According to
the Tribunal, the MFN clause mentioned above does not exclude the dispute
resolution clause. The Tribunal bases its argument on the fact that the word “maintenance” also covers the dispute resolution
provisions. Since the word “maintenance”
refers to the protection of the investment, it also covers the dispute
resolution clause.

“Neither
contracting party shall in its territory subject investors of the other
Contracting Party, as regards their management,
maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of their investments, to treatment less
favorable than that which it accords to its own investors or to investors of
any third state”

Secondly,
the MFN clause may be drafted in a way where the matters covered in the clause
are explicitly listed. Thus, if the dispute resolution clause does not take
place in the list then we may reach to a conclusion that it is excluded. As an
example of this may be found in the NAFTA, article 1103 reads as “each party shall accord to investors of
another party treatment no less favorable than it accords, in like
circumstances, to investors of any other party or of non-party with respect to
the establishment, acquisition,
expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of
investments”. The Plama Tribunal in the case Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria analyzed this
article. In the award, the tribunal accepted that the dispute resolution clause
was intentionally left out from the list, therefore this clause does not extend
to the dispute resolution clause. However, in a similar case, tribunal adopted
a very different view. In the Suez-AWG case, AWG Group Ltd. v. The Argentina
Republic the tribunal analyzed the UK-Argentina BIT. Article 3(2) of the
UK-Argentina BIT, it states that

Firstly, a
general and a broad wording such as the BIT signed between the Spain and
Argentina. This BIT had the MFN clause broadly drafted, “in all matters governed by this
Agreement, such treatment shall be no less favorable than that accorded by
each party to investment made in its territory by investors of a third country”.
In Spain-Argentina BIT the word “matter” creates an ambiguity about whether
the clause covering the substantive or procedural issues. Another example of a
broadly drafted MFN clause takes place in the BIT signed between Greece and
United Kingdom in 1886. In this BIT, the MFN clause stated “all
matters relating to commerce and navigation”. These somewhat broadly drafted MFN clauses were subject to
different tribunals such as Mafezzini v.
Kingdom of Spain, Gas Natural SDG, SA v. The Argentina Republic, Suez,
Sociedad General de Barcelona SA v. The Argentina Republic. Since the
dispute resolution provisions are matters in the treaty, these tribunals accepted that the word “matter” covers the dispute
resolution provisions. Additionally, the main reason behind signing a BIT is to
protect the investment, so excluding the dispute resolution clause from the
scope of a broadly drafted MFN clause is going to be against purpose of the
treaty. Therefore, broadly worded MFN clauses are accepted as they also cover
the dispute resolution clause. It is also stated that if a party is willing to
exclude the dispute resolution clause, then it should be written explicitly
while drafting the treaty. However, this interpretation also suggests that if a
MFN clause is not broadly drafted, in other words, does not articulate
statements such as “all matters” then it
does not cover the dispute resolution clause. Tribunals accept this opinion.

a-      Drafting
of the MFN clause

There are
different opinions about the scope and the interpretation of the MFN clause. At
this point, the drafting of the clause plays an important role. Parties to a
treaty may choose to draft a broad or a narrow MFN clause. There are three
wording types of MFN clauses mostly seen in BIT’s. In this article interpretation
of the clause is going to be explained, firstly (a) an interpretation will be deduced from the drafting of the MFN
clause. Secondly, (b) the MFN clause
will be interpreted according to all relevant circumstances.

1-      Understanding
the Scope of the MFN Clause in BIT’s through relevant cases

 

The issue is
whether the MFN clause covers the dispute resolution clause in BIT’s or not. In
other words, is it possible to incorporate dispute resolution provisions of a
third party BIT’s through the MFN clause. The conflict especially exists when
the parties does not expressly show their intentions in the wording of treaties.
If the MFN clause explicitly excludes the dispute settlement provisions or
clearly lists the scope of the clause, then there shall be no need for
interpretation. However not every MFN clause contains such statements.
Therefore, this kind of clauses needs interpretation in order to reveal the
intention of the parties and determine to scope of the clause. Firstly,
relevant cases are going to be examined. Secondly, the systematic
interpretation is going to take place.

According to
GATT, the most favored nation principle mainly aims to prevent discrimination
in international trade. Today, the MFN clause takes place in many different
areas such as international investment. The reason behind adopting MFN clause
in BIT’s is to protect investments and prevent discrimination between foreign
investors. However, usage of the MFN clause arises conflicts in international
investment law. Since the existence of MFN clause allows the party to be
treated equally as the more favored third party, the scope of the clause is
problematic.

Introduction

 

The
controversial issue about the application of the Most Favored Nation clause (hereinafter “MFN clause”) to the dispute resolution provisions in Bilateral
Investment Treaties (hereinafter “BIT”)
is going to be discussed in this article. Is it possible to replace the dispute
resolution provisions in BIT’s through the MFN clause? This article considers
the scope of the MFN clause in light of the relevant cases and scholars
opinions. Additionally, the article is concerned about the rationale of adding
a MFN clause to the BIT’s. This article also suggests that the adoption of the
MFN clause in the BIT’s requires parties to show their intentions clearly.
Finally, the interpretation of the MFN clause is going to take place in the
article.

Abstract

 

?hsan Bahad?r Çelikta?1

The
Effect of The MFN Clause to The Dispute Resolution Clauses in the BIT’s

Post Author: admin