Contrademandas por Estados soberanos: práctica excepcional por daños ambientales dentro del arbitraje internacional de inversión

Lenin Navarro Moreno

doi:10.37228/estado_comunes.v1.n20.2025.394

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) EBOOK (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

DOI https://doi.org/10.37228/estado_comunes.v1.n20.2025.394

Published: Jan 15, 2025

Keywords:

investment arbitration Burlington Resources ICSID Chevron Corporation UNCITRAL international law Perenco Limited counterclaim for environmental damages

Estadísticas de artículo

Vistas de resúmenes 580

Visualizaciones de archivo 238

Lenin Navarro Moreno

Member of the Board of the Inter-American Bar Association

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0462-9247

Abstract

Due to its legal complexity and a lack of conceptual development, the regulation of counterclaims is an unusual practice in international environmental law. The examination of counterclaims by sovereign states against foreign investors in the framework of investment contracts and environmental damage (in international cases arbitrated at UNCITRAL, ICSID and the PCA at Haya) suggests that the Ecuadorian state's counterclaims against Perenco Limited and Burlington Resources provide new elements for discussion. The analysis identifies global precedents that refute the idea that environmental damage is not arbitrable. The conclusions suggest the need to conceptualise the concept of counterclaims and to reform international treaty arbitration with an emphasis on environmental damages.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Navarro Moreno, L. (2025). Counterclaim by sovereign States: exceptional practice for environmental damages within international investment arbitration. Estado & Comunes, 1(20), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.37228/estado_comunes.v1.n20.2025.394

Issue

Número Vol. 1 No. 20 (2025): State contracts, strategic sectors and complex disputes

Sección Central Issue

License

References

1

Aagaard, T. (2014). Todd S. Using Non-Environmental Law to Accomplish Environmental Objectives. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, 30(1), 35-62. https://n9.cl/wyv9l

2

Aceris Law LLC (2017). The Cost of Investment Arbitration: UNCITRAL, ICSID Proceedings and Third-Party Funding. https://n9.cl/y97dvk

3

Birnie, P. (2009). The Development of International Environmental Law. British Journal of International, 3(2), 169-190.

4

Bjorklund, A. (2023). Particularities of Investment Arbitration. In S. Kröll, A. K. Bjorklund, & F. Ferrari (Eds.), Cambridge Compendium of International Commercial and Investment Arbitration (pp. 104-136). Cambridge University Press.

5

Cotula, L., & Thierry, B. (2020). Blue Economy. Why We Should Talk about Investment Law. International Institute for Environment and Development.

6

Ho, J. (2019). Creation of Elusive Investor Responsibility. AJIL Unbound 113. Cambridge University Press, London.

7

Human Rights Committee (2004). General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (26 May). CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13

8

Ishikawa, T. (2022). “Counterclaims: Jurisdiction and Admissibility”. In Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The Unexhausted Potential of Current Mechanisms (pp. 87-116). Cambridge University Press.

9

Juncker, J. (2014). A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic. European Union.

10

Mees, B. (2023). Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration: Towards an Integrated Approach, ICSID. Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 38(3), 567-594.

11

Navarro, L. (2022). La inversión en el arbitraje internacional. En L. Navarro (coord.), Desarrollos modernos del derecho internacional privado, libro homenaje a Leonel Pereznieto Castro (pp. 273-305). Tirant lo Blanch.

12

Navarro, L. (2022). El concepto de arbitraje. Centro Internacional de Arbitraje de la Cámara de Bélgica y Luxemburgo en Perú. https://ius360.com/el-concepto-de-arbitraje/

13

Navarro, L. (2018). Noción de inversión extranjera. Casa de La Cultura.

14

Navarro, L. (2011). Jurisdicción Internacional, libro VII. Enciclopedia Jurídica Omeba.

15

Navarro, L. (2011b). La contratación internacional, tomo IX-II. Enciclopedia Jurídica Omeba.

16

Navarro, L. (1988). El orden público y el orden privado. Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana. Colección Rumichaca.

17

Peters, A. (2020). Business and Human Rights: Making the Legally Binding Instrument Work in Public, Private and Criminal Law. Max Planck Institute MPIL Research Paper Series.

18

Qtaishat, K., & Qtaishat, A. (2021). Third Party Funding in Arbitration: Questions and Justifications. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 34(2). 341-356.

19

Ricagno, F. (2024). Derechos humanos e inversores extranjeros en el Acuerdo de Escazú y el Tratado Bilateral de Inversión Estados Unidos-Ecuador: condicionantes jurídicos. Estado & comunes, 2(19), 139-157.

20

Rogers, A. (1988). Forum Non Conveniens in Arbitration. Arbitration International, 4(3), 240-254.

21

Schreuer, C. (2009). The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press.

22

Sherman, E. (2008). The MDL model for resolving complex litigation if a class action is not possible. Tulane Law Review, 82(6), 8-12. https://n9.cl/b9gen

23

Simma, B. (2011). Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights? International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 60(3), 573-596.

24

Tzeng, P. (2022). Incidental Jurisdiction in International Adjudication and Incidental Determinations by International Organizations. American Journal of International Law, 116, 186-190.

25

Unctad (2011). Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia. https://n9.cl/xvnyx

26

Unctad (s/f). Nombre y número del caso. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement

27

Vermeer-Künzli, A (2007). As if: the legal fiction in diplomatic protection. European Journal of International Law, 18(1), 37-68.

28

Vicuña, F. (1998). Institut de Droit International: Responsibility and Liability Under International Law for Environmental Damage. International Legal Materials, 37(6), 1473-81.

29

Documentos internacionales, normativos y de prensa

30

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Gustav F.W. Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. República de Ghana, Case ARB/07/24. https://n9.cl/vcjlt

31

Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional [CNUDMI] (2004). Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic. https://www.italaw.com/cases/961

32

Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional [CNUDMI] (1976a). Antoine Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investment Centre y el Gobierno de Ghana. Laudos del 27 de octubre de 1989. https://n9.cl/zuhdb

33

Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional [CNUDMI] (1976b). Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia. https://www.italaw.com/cases/816

34

Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional y Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya. Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13. https://www.italaw.com/cases/417

35

Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional y Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya. Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, Case No. 2009-23. https://italaw.com/cases/257

36

Congreso Nacional (2005). Código Civil. Codificación No. 2005010. https://n9.cl/13duk

37

Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya [PCA]. Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador (II) Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), Case No. 2009-23. https://www.italaw.com/cases/257

38

Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya [PCA]. The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru (II), Case No. 2019-46. https://www.italaw.com/cases/6179

39

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. (2024). The ICSID Caseload - Statistics. https://n9.cl/ahfqw

40

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, Case No. ARB/14/21. https://www.italaw.com/cases/2848

41

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. S.A.R.L. Benvenuti & Bonfant v. People's Republic of the Congo, Case No. ARB/77/2. https://www.italaw.com/cases/3522

42

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, Case No. ARB/81/1. https://www.italaw.com/cases/3475

43

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, Case No. ARB/81/2. https://www.italaw.com/cases/3373

44

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Atlantic Triton Company Limited v. People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea, Case No. ARB/84/1. https://www.italaw.com/cases/3461

45

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea (II)., Case No. ARB/84/4. https://www.italaw.com/cases/3361

46

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, Case No. ARB/06/1. https://www.italaw.com/cases/927

47

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. The Renco Group, Inc. v. Republic of Peru [I], Case No. UNCT/13/1. https://www.italaw.com/cases/906

48

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Aven and others v. Costa Rica David R. Aven, Samuel D. Aven, Giacomo A. Buscemi and others v. Republic of Costa Rica, Case No. UNCT/15/3. https://n9.cl/bqd18

49

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, Case No. ARB/08/5. https://www.italaw.com/cases/181

50

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), Case No. ARB/08/6. https://www.italaw.com/cases/819

51

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Biskaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, Case No. ARB/07/26. https://www.italaw.com/cases/1144

52

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. ARB/07/30. https://www.italaw.com/cases/321

53

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Case No. ARB/06/11. https://www.italaw.com/cases/767

54

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones [Ciadi]. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), Case No. ARB/06/11. https://www.italaw.com/cases/767

55

Presidencia del Ecuador (s/f). Chevron causó en Ecuador un desastre natural superior al de British Petroleum y Exxon Valdez. https://n9.cl/43c72