Application of the rules of customary international law in the practice of investor–state arbitral tribunals

The subject. Аt the beginning of the 21st century the growing interest of the parties to the dispute and the arbitral tribunals in the rules of customary international law became apparent. This has raised doctrinal and practical questions about the relationship between treaty norms and rules of customary international law in the field of foreign investment protection. The most discussed of them were the issues of filling the gaps in international treaties through the application of the rules of customary international law and the establishment by the arbitral tribunals of the content of the customs they need to apply during dispute resolution.

Materials and methods. This research carried out a scientific analysis of the practice of investor–state arbitral tribunals regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of customary international law in settlement of investment disputes.

Discussion. Numerous investor-state arbitration awards show that arbitration tribunals constantly use the rules of customary international law in dispute resolution. Moreover, arbitrators often refer to the rules of customary international law as a separate legal basis for their conclusions. As modern practice shows, in most cases arbitrators are not inclined to consider the existence or the absence of State practice or opinio juris, instead relying on the conclusions about the existence of a customary rule made earlier by the ICJ, the PCIJ and other arbitration tribunals, as well as international treaties, reports of the International Law Commission and doctrine.

The main results and conclusions. The rules of customary international law are applied by the arbitral tribunals when considering a wide range of issues (jurisdiction, organization of arbitration, applicable substantive law and liability issues). A vivid example of the use of the rules of customary international law in the settlement of investment disputes to fill the gaps in international treaties was a reference by arbitral tribunals to the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission as a codification of existing rules of customary international law in this area.

However, the peculiarity of the use of the Articles by the arbitral tribunals is that the arbitrators consider it as a document containing formulations identical in content to existing rules of customary international law. This leads to the “automatic” application by the arbitrators of the provisions of the Articles to the facts of the case without analysing State practice. Moreover, application of the provisions of the Articles by the arbitral tribunals seems inconsistent, especially in such sensitive issues for the States as the amount of compensation awarded to an investor and contributory fault by an investor. In addition, the high creativity of investors suggests the emergence of claims based solely on the rules of customary international law, and not the provisions of international investment agreements. 

1. Vandevelde K.J. A Brief History of International Investment Agreements. U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 2005, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 157–194.

2. Muchlinski P.T. The Rise and Fall of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Where Now. The International Lawyer, 2000, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1033–1053.

3. Hirsch M. Sources of International Investment Law, in: Bjorklund A., Reinisch A. (eds.). International Investment Law and Soft Law, Edward Elgar Publ., 2012, pp. 9–38.

4. McLachlan C. Is There an Evolving Customary International Law on Investment?. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2016, vol. 31, iss. 2, pp. 257–269. DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siw015.

5. Salacuse J.W. The Treatification of International Investment Law. Law and Business Review of Americas, 2007, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 155–166.

6. Ispolinov A. Risks of modern customary international law and ways of minimizing them. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie = International Justice, 2023, no. 2 (46), pp. 70–90. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2023-2-70-91. (In Russ.).

7. Ispolinov A. Local (Particular) Customs, International Court of Justice and the Problem of State Consent. Zakon, 2024, no. 8, pp. 122–132. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2024-21-8-122-132. (In Russ.).

8. Fauchald O.K. The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – An Empirical Analysis. European Journal of International Law, 2008, vol. 19, iss. 2, pp. 301–364. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chn011.

9. Balcerzak F. The Role of Customary International Law in International Investment Law Remedies: The Curious Case of Natural Resources, in: Merkouris P., Kulick A., Álvarez-Zarate J.M., Żenkiewicz M. (eds.). Custom and its Interpretation in International Investment Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 284–306. DOI: 10.1017/9781009255462.016.

10. Lekkas S.-I. Uses of the Work of International Law Commission on State Responsibility in International Investment Arbitration, in: Merkouris P., Kulick A., Álvarez-Zarate J.M., Żenkiewicz M. (eds.). Custom and its Interpretation in International Investment Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 93–122. DOI: 10.1017/9781009255462.008.

11. Paparinskis M. Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law of State Responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 2013, vol. 24, iss. 2, pp. 617–647. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/cht025.

12. Shirlow E., Duggal K. The ILC Articles on State Responsibility in Investment Treaty Arbitration. ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2022, vol. 37, iss. 1–2, pp. 378–542. DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siac008.

13. Marboe I. Compensation and Damages in International Law: The Limits of “Fair Market Value”. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2006, vol. 7, iss. 5, pp. 723–759. DOI: 10.1163/221190006X00379.

14. Álvarez-Zarate J.M. Assessing Damages in Customary International Law: The Chorzów’s Tale, in: Merkouris P., Kulick A., Álvarez-Zarate J.M., Żenkiewicz M. (eds.). Custom and its Interpretation in International Investment Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 71–90. DOI: 10.1017/9781009255462.006.

15. Bonnitcha J., Langford M., Alvarez-Zarate J.M., Behn D. Damages and ISDS Reform: Between Procedure and Substance. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2023, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 213–241. DOI: 10.1093/ jnlids/idab034.

16. Marzal T. Quantum (In)Justice: Rethinking the Calculation of Compensation and Damages in ISDS. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2021, vol. 22, iss. 2, pp. 249–312. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-12340209.

17. Marcoux J.-M., Bjorklund A.K. Foreign Investors’ Responsibilities and Contributory Fault in Investment Arbitration. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2020, vol. 69, iss. 4, pp. 877–905. DOI: 10.1017/S0020589320000354.

18. Romashev Yu.S. To the Question of the Concept of International Custom. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava = Moscow Journal of International Law, 2022, no. 1, pp. 27–37. (In Russ.).

19. Boudouhi S.E. Recourse to Legal Experts for the Establishment and Interpretation of Customary Norms in Investment Law, in: Merkouris P., Kulick A., Álvarez-Zarate J.M., Żenkiewicz M. (eds.). Custom and its Interpretation in International Investment Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 23–45. DOI: 10.1017/ 9781009255462.004.

20. Gazzini T. The Role of Customary International Law in the Field of Foreign Investment. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2007, vol. 8, iss. 5, pp. 691–715. DOI: 10.1163/221190007X00143.

21. Mejía-Lemos D. The Identification of Customary International Law, and International Investment Law and Arbitration: State Practice in Connection with Investor-State Proceedings, in: Merkouris P., Kulick A., Álvarez-Zarate J.M., Żenkiewicz M. (eds.). Custom and its Interpretation in International Investment Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pp. 46–70. DOI: 10.1017/9781009255462.005.

22. Torres F.E. Revisiting the Chorzów Factory Standard of Reparation – Its Relevance in Contemporary International Law and Practice. Nordic Journal of International Law, 2021, vol. 90, iss. 2, pp. 190–227. DOI: 10.1163/ 15718107-bja10023.

23. Alvarez J.E. A BIT on Custom. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 2009, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 17–80.

24. Dumberry P. Are BITs Representing the "New" Customary International Law in International Investment Law?. Penn State International Law Review, 2010, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 675–701.

25. Parlett K. Claims under Customary International Law in ICSID Arbitration. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2016, vol. 31, iss. 2, pp. 434–456. DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siw009.