Magnifier Search

Methanex v. USA

Type of decisionPartial Award
Date of decision7 August 2002
Tribunal
Van Vechten Veeder (President)
Warren Christopher
William Rowley
Legal instrumentNorth American Free Trade Agreement
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
Decisions of other tribunals are not sources of law and are not legally binding upon another tribunal
General remarks regarding the underlying principles of Article 31(1) VCLT
The principle of interpreting treaties in deference to the sovereignty of states does not apply
Article 21(1) UNCITRAL does not confer the tribunal the power to dismiss a claim on the grounds of inadmissibility
General remarks regarding the underlying principles of Article 31(1) VCLT
The principle of interpreting treaties in deference to the sovereignty of states does not apply
General remarks regarding the scheme of Chapter 11
A measure relates to an investment if there is a legally significant connection between them; the mere effect of a measure on an investor or an investment is not sufficient
Article 1116 NAFTA does not require a claimant to prove, that the alleged breach is the proximate cause of the alleged loss
To establish jurisdiction, a tribunal need only interpret Article 1101(1) NAFTA and decide whether Chapter 11 applies on the facts alleged by the claimant; the tribunal need not interpret other substantive provisions at the jurisdictional stage
A tribunal may allow the claimant to amend its statement of claim on the condition that the claimant ultimately bears, regardless of the result of the arbitration, the additional costs caused by the amendment
The exercise of the discretion of Article 21(4) UNCITRAL is not confined to economic factors
Article 21(1) UNCITRAL does not confer the power to dismiss a claim on the grounds of inadmissibility on a tribunal

Feedback

Above you will find 11 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!