0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
670 vues1 page
The document summarizes an international arbitral tribunal ruling on a dispute between two US oil companies and the government of Libya over the nationalization of the companies' oil assets in Libya. The tribunal found that:
1) Libya had entered into concession agreements with the companies that constituted international obligations and prevented unilateral nationalization.
2) While Libya has sovereignty over its resources, it exercised that sovereignty in granting long-term concessions and could not disregard those commitments through nationalization.
3) International law recognizes both the right to nationalize and the power of states to commit themselves internationally, such as through stabilization clauses in contracts.
The document summarizes an international arbitral tribunal ruling on a dispute between two US oil companies and the government of Libya over the nationalization of the companies' oil assets in Libya. The tribunal found that:
1) Libya had entered into concession agreements with the companies that constituted international obligations and prevented unilateral nationalization.
2) While Libya has sovereignty over its resources, it exercised that sovereignty in granting long-term concessions and could not disregard those commitments through nationalization.
3) International law recognizes both the right to nationalize and the power of states to commit themselves internationally, such as through stabilization clauses in contracts.
The document summarizes an international arbitral tribunal ruling on a dispute between two US oil companies and the government of Libya over the nationalization of the companies' oil assets in Libya. The tribunal found that:
1) Libya had entered into concession agreements with the companies that constituted international obligations and prevented unilateral nationalization.
2) While Libya has sovereignty over its resources, it exercised that sovereignty in granting long-term concessions and could not disregard those commitments through nationalization.
3) International law recognizes both the right to nationalize and the power of states to commit themselves internationally, such as through stabilization clauses in contracts.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: AWARD ON THE MERITS
IN DISPUTE BETWEEN TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM
COMPANY/CALIFORNIA ASIATIC OIL COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC (Compensation for Nationalized Property) 17 ILM 1; January 1978 TOPIC: Personality Under International Law FACTS: 14 Deeds of Concessions was concluded between Libya and 2 USA Companies. These deeds were modified with the consent of all parties for the purpose of bringing the Concessions in line with the amended Petroleum Laws. In 1973, 51% of the properties, rights and assets relating to the Deeds of Concessions were nationalized by a Decree. In 1974, another Decree was issue which provides that all the properties, rights and assets of the Deeds was nationalized. In the same Decree, the Companies were declared solely responsible and liable for all liabilities and obligations arising from their activities. The Decree provides that a committee will be formed to determine the compensation to be paid but this committee did not function or that its members were nominated. In the 1973 Decree, Amoseas was formed by the Companies to carry out its activities in Libya to the extent of 49%. But because of the Decree in 2974, the Amoseas was converted to a Non-Profit Company, and the assets of which were completely owned by the Libyan National Oil Company. The Companies, with notice to Libyan Government, raised the matter to arbitration. In 1974, the President of ICJ appointed the sole arbitrator. The Libyan government did not participate in the arbitral proceeding but the Arbitrator kept them informed and updated. ISSUE: Whether Libya had undertaken international obligations which prevented it from taking nationalizing measures and whether the disregard of such obligation is justified by the sovereign nature of such nationalization measures. HELD: If the contract is an internationalized contract, the State has placed itself under the international law. In the case at bar, Libya had undertaken specific commitment which could not be disregarded by the nationalization measures commitments that Libya had granted a Concession of a minimum duration of 50 years. But such commitment cannot be regarded as a negation of its sovereignty, but a manifestation if such sovereignty. The arbitration observed that, :The recognition by international law of the right to nationalize is not sufficient ground to empower a State to disregard its commitment, because the same law also recognized the power of a State to commit itself internationally, especially by accepting the inclusion of stabilization clauses in a contract entered into with foreign private party.