Document Type : Article
Authors
1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student in International Trade and Investment Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
"Delaying to file a lawsuit as an obstacle to hearing claims" has a wider scope than the usual "lapse of time" topic. In such a way that even if the lapse of time clause is not foreseen in the treaties or international trade contracts or the law governing them, it can prevent the hearing of the case in the hearing authority. This paper seeks to answer the question of whether the issue in question has a solid legal basis that allows it to be used in similar cases, while examining the nature and principles and doctrine governing this issue and the related judicial procedures, and especially its reflection in the arbitral award in the case of "orazul v. Argentina" case (2023) before the ICSID. The review of the existing doctrine and judicial procedure, while answering this question in the affirmative, also considers it compatible with justice.
Keywords
Main Subjects
English
- A) Books
- Cheng, B. (1987). General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge Grotiue Publications Limited.
- Hobér, K. (2001). Extinctive Prescription and Applicable Law in Interstate Arbitration (Iustus Forlag 2001). ISSN 0282-2040, ISBN 91-7678-479-7.
- KING, B. E. (1934). Prescription of Claims in International Law. M.A., LL.B., Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge.
- B) Articles
- Tams, C. J. (2009). Waiver, Acquiescence, and Extinctive Prescription, in The Law of International Responsibility, James Crawford J, Pellet A, and Olleson, S (eds.), Oxford Commentaries on International Law. Oxford: Oxford University, 1035-1049. ISBN 9780199296972
- Triggiano, A. (2022). Some Remarks on Extinctive Prescription in Legal History. Civil Procedure Review, 13 (1). ISSN 2191-1339.
- C) Cases
- Caribbean Court of Justice. S.M. Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v. Guyana Cooperative Republic, Decision issued on 9 May 2017.
- Claims Commission. H. Williams v. Venezuela, Decision of December 5, 1885.
- Court of Justice of the European Communities. Brasserie du Pêcheur S.A. v. Federal Republic of Germany and The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others. Joined cases C-46/93 and C48/93, 5 March 1996.
- ICJ. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992. No. 92/18 .26 June 1992.
- ICJ.Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment of 15 June 1962.
- ICSID. (DS) 2, S.A., Monsieur Peter de Sutter et Monsieur Kristof de Sutter c. République de Madagascar. Case NO.ARB/17/18.17 April 2020.
- ICSID. Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Société Anonyme S.A. v. Republic of Albania. Case No. ARB/11/24. 30 March 2015.
- ICSID. Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v. Argentine Republic. Case No. ARB/19/25. 14 December 2023.
- ICSID. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of Paraguay. Case No. ARB/07/29. 10 February 2012.
- ICSID. Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt. Case No. ARB/98/4. December 8, 2000.
- UNCITRAL. Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. The Republic of Ecuador. Case No. 34877. 1 December 2008.
- UNCITRAL Nordzucker AG v. Republic of Poland, Partial Award, 10 December 2008.
- D) Document
- International Law Institute Yearbook, No. 32, 1925.
References In Persian:
- Eftekhar Jahromi, G., & Shahbazinia, M. (2004). A Study on Principle of Estoppel in English and American Law. International Law Review an Academic. 21(30). January 2004. 5-73 (In Persian). doi.10.22066/CILAMAG.2004.18022 (In Persian).
- Mehdizadeh, A., & Soleimanian M. (2023). Good Faith in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice. The Journal of Legal Research. 21(52). March 2023. 225-250 doi.10.48300/JLR.2021.256450.1540 (In Persian).
)