END TERM EXAMINATION, NOVEMBER 2016
B.A.LL.B. (HONS.)
SEMESTER-VII IX
International Investment Law (Hons.-I)
Max. Marks: 60 Time Allowed: 3:00 Hrs.
Note: Answer five questions including Question No. 1 which is compulsory. The number of marks carried by each question is indicated at the end of the question.
1. Answer the following (each answer should be in approximately 100 words): (Marks 2×10=20)
a. Who can be the Investor under International Investment Law? Briefly discuss.
b. Briefly explain Creeping Expropriation
c. Limited usefulness of Domestic Courts in investment dispute settlement
d. 'Access to Justice' under International Investment Law
e. Salini Criteria
f. Nationality of corporations under International Investment Law
g. Explain the principle of Admission of foreign investor in the light of Bilateral Investment Treaties
h. Relevance of Positive and Negative list approach under International Investment Law
i. Most Favoured Nation Treatment under International Investment Law
j. Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB
2. What do you understand by International Investment? Explain in detail the early history and developments (pre World War II) regarding International Investment. (Marks 10)
3. Discuss different sources of International Investment Law with special reference to ICSID Convention. (Marks 10)
4. The legal rules applicable to extraordinary events and periods of economic and social disorder are of direct interest both to the host state and to the foreign investor. Discuss in detail at least three extraordinary events and the relevant provisions with the case laws to establish the state responsibility. (Marks 10)
5. What do you understand by subject matter of dispute and consent to arbitration under International Investment law? Discuss with the relevant provisions of ICSID Convention and relevant cases. (Marks 10)
6. The entire issue is based on Egypt-UK BIT. In 1989 and 1990, Temple Court Hotels Ltd. ("Temple"), a British company, entered into two long-term agreements with the Egyptian Hotels Company wholly owned by the Egyptian Government. The agreements concerned lease to, and development by Temple, of two hotels Hayat Hotel in Cairo (for 21.5 years) and Hilton Hotel in Luxor (for 25 years). The agreements provided that EHC would not interfere in the management and/or operation of the hotels or interfere with the enjoyment of the leases by Temple. Shortly after entering into the agreements, disputes arose between EHC and Temple concerning their respective obligations. Temple alleged to have received the hotels in a condition below that stipulated in the agreements and withheld part of the rent. Egypt claimed that Temple had failed to pay the rent. Having reached a stalemate in the dispute, on 1 April 1991 EHC took possession of both hotels by force.
In early 1992, the Chief Prosecutor of Egypt ruled that the seizure of the hotels had been illegal. The hotels were returned to Temple but in a damaged state, especially the Hayat Hotel. In addition, due to Egypt's Ministry of Tourism interference with operating licenses for the hotels, Temple was effectively prevented from operating the hotels again. After the return of the hotels, Temple sought compensation from Egypt. In two arbitrations that it had initiated, in 1994 Temple was awarded EGP 1.5 million for damages from the seizure of the Hayat Hotel (paid by Egypt in 1997) and EGP 9.06 million for damages from the seizure of the Hilton Hotel. The latter arbitral award was subsequently nullified by the Cairo Appeal Court. The awards also required Temple to surrender the hotels to the EHC's control. Temple was evicted from the Hayat Hotel in 1995 and from the Hilton Hotel in 1997.
In 1998 Temple initiated ICSID arbitral proceedings against Egypt under the provisions of the Egypt-UK BIT (Article 5 of the BIT provided that in the event of an expropriation, the private investor shall be entitled to "prompt, adequate and effective compensation" and "such compensation shall amount to the market value of the investment immediately before the expropriation.") claiming that Egypt's actions constituted an unlawful expropriation without "prompt, adequate and effective compensation" and that Egypt had failed to accord Temple's investments "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security", as required by the BIT. Temple claimed damages of no less than US$ 62,820,000.
Decide the matter in the light of relevant provisions of ICSID Convention and principles under International Investment Law. (Marks 10)
7. Briefly explain any two of the following: (Marks 5×2=10)
a. Full Protection and Security as a principle of Non-Discrimination
b. Regulation of investment incentives
c. Obligation foreign investor to promote economic development of the host state