magnify
Home Archive for category "International Economic Law"

Iceland not responsible for the liabilities of its deposit insurance scheme

Published on January 28, 2013        Author: 

In a landmark decision, the EFTA Court on 28 January 2013 dismissed all claims brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland in the Icesave case. The Authority had alleged that Iceland had breached its obligations under Directive 94/14/EC on deposit guarantee by failing to compensate Icesave depositors and had violated the prohibition on non-discrimination in the Directive and Article 4 of the EEA Agreement by prioritising payments to domestic savers. The court, referring to the collapse of the Icelandic banking system as an “enormous event” (para. 161), found that Iceland was not responsible for the liabilities of the Icelandic deposit insurance scheme that was overwhelmed with claims following the collapse of Iceland’s three major banks.

Icesave refers to two branches of the Icelandic bank Landsbanki that accepted deposits offering comparatively high interest rates in the UK and the Netherlands. Deposits in these branches were primarily the responsibility of the Icelandic Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF). Following the wholesale collapse of Iceland’s banking system in October 2008, savers in the UK and the Netherlands lost access to their deposits on 6 October 2008. The Icelandic Parliament adopted emergency legislation on the same day to split Landsbanki into a good and a bad bank. By virtue of the same legislation, it gave priority to depositors as compared to other creditors (for further background on the Icesave dispute, including the unsuccessful negotiations between Iceland and the UK/Netherlands, see my ASIL Insight Iceland’s Financial Crisis – Quo Vadis International Law).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Union, Financial Crisis, State Responsibility
 

ITLOS order Ghana to release Argentine navy ship

Published on December 17, 2012        Author: 

On 15 December, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ordered Ghana to release the Argentine military training vessel ARA Fragata Libertad (see oral proceedings). NML Capital, an investment company focused on distressed debt based in the Cayman Islands and owned by Elliot Associates, a US hedge fund, had earlier obtained an order from the Ghana Superior Court of Judicature (Commercial Division) to attach the Libertad moored in the port of Trema to satisfy a judgment by a US District Court for payment on defaulted Argentine bonds. The Libertad was on an official goodwill mission in Ghana’s internal waters at the time of the attachment. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Financial Crisis, International Law and Domestic Law, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Law of the Sea, State Immunity
 

Argentina’s Sovereign Debt Default Cases: Some Recent Developments in a Continuing Saga

Published on November 9, 2012        Author: 

More than ten years have passed since Argentina defaulted on its external debt obligations in December 2001. However, the repercussions of the Argentine financial crisis continue to contribute to the development of international law. This brief note provides a short overview of the most recent decisions of different domestic courts arising out of this Argentinian saga: NML Ltd et al. v the Republic Argentina before the US Court of Appeals decided on 26th October 2012 (see reporting here, here, here and here), and the decision of the Ghanaian Commercial Court of 2nd October 2012 (see Opinio Juris, BBC, Al Jazeera,  and elsewhere: here, and here), while reference will be made to the NML v Argentina case, before the UK Supreme Court which was decided on 6th July 2011 (see reporting here and here).

These three cases pronounced on inter-related, but distinct, legal issues (enforcement of foreign awards, state immunity, and non-discriminatory treatment of bondholders) arising out of the Argentine decision to default on its external debt. In combination, they have far-reaching legal implications. It is noteworthy that different courts from around the globe repeatedly ruled in favour of bondholders and against Argentina. Although Argentina in and out of court has invoked political arguments, such as the implications of the court’s approach to the Eurozone crisis resolution efforts (in NML v Argentina before the US Court of Appeals) and the nature of the claimants as ‘vulture funds’ (see here reacting to the Ghanaian Commercial Court ruling; see also Lord Phillips and Lord Collins in NML v Argentina  [2011] UKSC 31, paragraphs 1 and 104-107 respectively), domestic courts consistently prioritise a more legal or stricto sensu approach and promote the Rule of Law in international economic and financial relations.

Background and US Proceedings

After the default in 2001, Argentina made exchange offers to holders of bonds, which were governed by the Fiscal Agency Agreement (FAA). Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, Financial Crisis, International Economic Law, International Law and Domestic Law, State Immunity
 

The German Constitutional Court and the Euro-Crisis: The Emperor‘s New Clothes?

Published on September 20, 2012        Author: 

 Daniel Thym is Professor of Public, European and International Law at the University of Konstanz

Domestic German debates about the euro-crisis have had an unreal character so far. In the face of an economic crisis with global repercussions, the German public has been fascinated by the role of the Constitutional Court whom they admire. A vast majority of Germans trust that the country’s highest justices will steer the euro-debate through troubled waters with legal arguments. This confidence in the ability of Germany’s top constitutionalists, including several public law professors, was always bound to lead to disappointment.

It is true that the German Constitutional Court cannot be held responsible for the excessive media hype (or indeed opinion polls) about its role. However, it has to shoulder some responsibility. In recent years, the Court’s Second Senate had nourished the expectation that its interpretation of the principle of democracy was a lodestar for rescue operations. The debate reminded me of the fairy tale ‘The Emperor‘s New Clothes’. Those who aspire to ever more prestigious garments as a sign of power and wisdom risk being found to be naked at the end of the day. This applies to the German judicial ‘sovereign’ in the same vein as to the entourage who longed to gain from the prestige of their glorious ruler.

The Court’s latest judgment on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) (also discussed by Michael Waibel here) and related instruments is an excellent demonstration why the desire for the pomp and circumstance of imperial times, remains an illusion (at least in Germany). The lesson is evident: the time has come to recalibrate the (legal) debate on euro rescue operations in Germany and beyond. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Union, Financial Crisis
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off

Karlsruhe gives green light for German ESM ratification

Published on September 12, 2012        Author: 

On September 12, 2012, the German Constitutional Court dismissed several constitutional complaints that sought an injunction to prevent German ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – a central pillar of the Eurozone’s crisis response – and the Fiscal Treaty in the preliminary phase of the proceedings (extracts in English). A full ruling is expected in a few months. German ratification is required for the ESM treaty to enter into force, and critical in financial terms for the ESM’s credibility. The Court’s preliminary ruling means that the last hurdle for the ESM to enter into force has now been cleared. German ratification should follow in the next few weeks.

The court conditioned German ratification on two reservations to the ESM treaty: first, the German capital subscription needs to be limited to 190 billion Euros, as provided by the ESM Treaty (though the ESM’s capital may be increased beyond this ceiling pursuant to the procedure forseen in Article 10 of the ESM Treaty); and second, notwithstanding the confidentiality of the ESM’s deliberations, the German Parliament needs to be fully informed about operations of the ESM.  The Bundesverfassungsgericht seized its one chance to foreclose two possible, but unlikely interpretations of the ESM Treaty that would conflict with the German Constitution before interpretative authority passes to the Court of Justice under the ESM Treaty.

The Court’s insistence on two reservations is only a small  “but”. The Court took issue with two aspects that are marginal to the firepower and effectiveness of the ESM. The decision has virtually no effect on how the ESM will operate, and in particular on the capital that the ESM will have its disposal. It could lengthen the German ratification process by a few weeks, but the Court’s decision has removed substantial  unertainty about the Eurozone crisis response. Most other Eurozone member countries, including France and Spain, have already ratified the treaty. According to Article 48 of the ESM Treaty, the Treaty enters into force once countries representing 90 percent of capital subscriptions have ratified. The German share in of the total capital subscriptions of 700 billion Euros is just over 27 percent.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Union, Financial Crisis
 

Ecuador v. United States Inter-State Arbitration under a BIT: How to Interpret the Word “Interpretation”?

Published on August 31, 2012        Author: 

There is an inter-State arbitration pending between Ecuador and the United States under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between those two countries (Treaty between United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, 27 August 1993). The Ecuador v. US case , which was initiated in June 2011, is, as far as I am aware, a very very rare instance of inter-State arbitral proceedings under a BIT. As is well known, one of the main purposes of BITs is to give investors the right to bring claims against the host state of investment. This feature of BITs, and the vast number of such treaties, has meant that investor-State arbitrations under BITs have replaced diplomatic protection as the primary means of settling investment disputes. There have been hundreds of investor-State proceedings before arbitral tribunals.  However, BITs also contain compromissory clauses by which disputes concerning the interpretation or application of disputes under these treaties can be brought before arbitral tribunals established under the BIT. The only other inter-State BIT cases that I am aware of are the recent Italy and Cuba cases which were discussed in the April 2012 issue of the American Journal of International Law. In general, States leave it to the investor to protect its rights under the BIT.

The present proceedings brought by Ecuador are particularly interesting for a couple of reasons: one specific to investment law, the other relating to general international law. First of all, as the case arises out of Ecuador’s dissatisfaction with the interpretation given by an earlier investor-State arbitral tribunal (Chevron and Texaco Petroleum Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Partial Award, 30 March 2010) to a particular provision of the Ecuador – US BIT,  the case may be construed as a way by which Ecuador is trying to use the inter-State procedure as a way of appealing the results of a case brought under the investor-State procedure. There have been concerns by many that there is no appellate procedure in the investment treaty system and this case seems to be an attempt to create one.

Secondly, Ecuador’s case raises a general question about how one interprets the standard compromissory clause to be found in treaties where jurisdiction is granted to an  international tribunal over disputes between the parties “concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty”. Ecuador is of the view that the US has a different interpretation from it of a provision of the BIT. However, Ecuador does not argue that the US has violated the BIT, it only seeks to resolve a question about how the BIT should be interpreted. So, does the tribunal have jurisdiction over a case where the parties disagree about how a treaty should  be interpreted but where there is no allegation that the respondent party has actually misapplied the treaty or done any act which constitutes a violation of the treaty. The question is whether this standard formulation of a compromisory clause means that international tribunals can only deal with concrete disputes about violations of treaties or whether they can play a general advisory function with respect to the meaning of the treaty. In short, what is a dispute about “interpretation”of a treaty? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, Inter-State Arbitration
 

Oil exploration around the Falklands (Malvinas)

Published on August 13, 2012        Author: 

In June, I looked at the longstanding sovereignty dispute over the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) on the occasion of the 30-year anniversary of the 1982 war. I revisit this topic today to examine the question of investor protection in areas where sovereignty is disputed, taking the Falklands (Malvinas) as an example. The promise of an oil boom in the South Atlantic has prompted several companies listed in London, including Falkland Oil and Gas, Borders and Southern Petroleum, Rockhopper, Desire Petroleum and Argos Resources, to survey the area. They obtained exploration licenses from the Falklands administration in 2011, which drew strong criticism from Argentina. Shareholders in these inherently risky ventures may wonder whether they have any legal protections should the sovereignty dispute intensify.

The sovereignty dispute adds an additional layer of uncertainty for the companies engaged in exploratory drilling and their shareholders, aside from the uncertainty on how much oil, if any, will ultimately be discovered. The listing prospectuses of the companies concerned all mention the pending sovereignty dispute as a risk factor, but likely underplayed its importance. For example, the Falkland Oil and Gas Prospectus contains the following disclaimer:

There may be other unforeseen matters such as disputes over borders. Investors will be  aware that the Falkland Islands were, in 1982, the subject of hostilities between the  United Kingdom and Argentina.

The Argentine Government has not relinquished all its claims in relation to the Falkland Islands. However, the position of the UK and Falkland Islands Governments is that the   United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South   Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. Her Majesty’s Government  remains fully committed to the offshore prospecting policy pursued by the Falkland Islands Government, as laid out in the Offshore Petroleum (Licensing) Regulations 2000. This policy is entirely consistent with Her Majesty’s sovereign rights over the Falkland Islands.

Do investments in the territorial sea of the Falklands (Malvinas) fall under the territorial scope of application of the UK’s BIT (or, for that matter, under the scope of Argentina’s BITs)? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, International Economic Law, Law of the Sea, Self-Determination, Territorial Disputes
 

Dublin, Karlsruhe and Luxembourg in dialogue

Published on August 6, 2012        Author: 

While financial markets have focused on Karlsruhe where the second challenge to the Eurozone rescue efforts in a year is currently pending, the Irish Supreme Court held on July 31 that Irish ratification of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism and the Fiscal Treaty was compatible with the Irish constitution.  The court referred two questions to the Court of Justice under the latter’s accelerated preliminary reference procedure due to the exceptional urgency of the case. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court declined to enjoin the Irish ratification process while the case is pending before the Court of Justice. The Irish government ratified both treaties on August 1.

In contrast, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht bidded its time on a similar challenge to German ESM ratification. Ireland is on the frontline of the Eurozone crisis. The Economist, in departure from the deference it typically pays to court proceedings, called the German Constitutional Court ‘ scandalously slow’ . Ireland is one of three Eurozone countries with an EU-IMF financing package in place. Most of the support is provided by the European Financial Stability Facility that the ESM is designed to replace once it starts operating. The need to decide this significant case as a matter of urgency was evident to the Irish Supreme Court. It put seven judges on the appeal, super-fast-tracked the hearing, and reserved four days for the hearing.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Union, Financial Crisis
 

ECHR leaves Northern Rock shareholders out in the cold

Published on August 3, 2012        Author: 

On August 1, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dashed hopes of Northern Rock shareholders to obtain compensation from the UK for the collapse and nationalization of British bank Northern Rock. The Fourth Section of the ECtHR unanimously dismissed the case Dennis Grainger and others v. UK (Application No. 34940/10) as manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible. The decision has broader ramifications. It suggests that member countries of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) have a wide margin of appreciation in setting macro-economic policy in general and in the resolution of banking and financial crises in particular. The ECtHR decision suggests that creditors and other interested parties will face an uphill struggle in challenging measures taken in the context of financial crisis resolution before the ECtHR and in obtaining compensation. It is an important decision at the intersection of international finance and human rights. Investors holding the debt of Eurozone governments will take note.

The court fully endorsed the holding and approach of the English courts. Like the English domestic courts, it found that the assumptions that  the valuer of Northern Rock shares was required to make pursuant to the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 s.5 (4) did not violate the rights of shareholders under Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Financial Crisis
 

Review of Expert Determinations of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association by Domestic Courts

Published on May 2, 2012        Author: 

A central policy concern since the onset of the Greek debt crisis in 2010 has been whether sovereign debt restructurings trigger credit default swaps (CDS). CDS are insurance-like financial products whereby a protection seller agrees to pay the protection buyer in case of a credit event on a reference entity (in this case Greece) in return for a premium over a defined period of time. The legal framework for CDS transactions is largely standardized. More than 90 percent of CDS transactions are based on the ISDA Master Agreement. As a mechanism for creditors to hedge against the default of a debtor, CDS are financial instruments to redistribute risk (or, according to their defenders, to shift risk onto those entities willing and capable of better bearing such risks). Over the last two decades, CDS on sovereign debtors became increasingly common.

Greece’s debt restructuring in February/March 2012 was the first to be implemented under the umbrella of a large number of CDS (more than 2.5 billion Euros in net terms).  During the implementation phase of the Greek restructuring in March 2012, several interested market participants raised the question whether the Greek restructuring triggered an obligation for the sellers of CDS on Greece to pay. The Determinations Committee (DC) of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) for Europe, Middle East and Africa, the body established by ISDA and given decision-making power under the ISDA documentation to rule on credit events,  found that a restructuring credit event was triggered on March  9 2012.  The parties to CDS have agreed by contract that a credit event occurs only if the competent DC has said so.

As the Greek restructuring in February/March 2012 demonstrated, the consequences of such expert determinations by DCs can be momentous in financial terms not only for the parties to CDS transactions themselves, but also for the broader public and for taxpayers. A case in point is the Austrian bank KA Finanz, the bad bank split off from Kommunalkredit, the comparatively small Austrian lender to municipalities previously owned by Dexia that the Austrian government nationalized at the height of the global financial crisis. KA Finanz had taken over about 500 million Euros of CDS on Greece from Kommunalkredit. As a result of the payouts following the March 9 decision, the Austrian government had to inject another 1 billion Euros into the bank in order to stave off its collapse.

DCs recruit their members from among financial institutions and investment managers, which will often have positions on either side of CDS transactions. In view of their composition and the considerable practical importance of their decisions, concern has arisen that DC members may be tempted to “vote their own book” – i.e. to reach credit determinations in part based on whether the firm is on the buying or selling side of CDS for a particular reference entity.  For instance, two members of the Steering Committee of the Institute of International Finance  which negotiated the restructuring of Greek debt on behalf of private creditors of Greece, are voting members of the DC for Europe (BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank). They were net sellers of CDS protection on Greece, meaning that both institutions had to pay out to protection buyers when the credit event occured. Given these concerns about independence of DCs and the right to a fair trial in civil matters under Article 6 of the European Convention, it is an open question whether competent domestic courts could in effect review decisions and potentially overturn decisions of DCs. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis, European Union, Financial Crisis, International Law and Domestic Law