a. "have not respected the status quo;
b. cease and desist arguing issues subject to these Annulment Proceedings in the press;
c. not further aggravate the dispute or the Applicant;
d. not frustrate the eventual annulment decision; and
e. maintain the status quo."21
a. "identify the substantive and procedural right that requires protection;
b. establish that the measures proposed are urgent; and
c. show that there is necessity, i.e., if the provisional measures are not ordered, there will be irreparable damage to the rights that Zimbabwe seeks to protect."32
The Applicant’s Application raises an issue that has also arisen before other ad hoc committees, but which has not yet been decided, as to whether an ICSID ad hoc committee is competent to recommend provisional measures in the first place.48 The issue arises because Article 47 of the ICSID Convention, which deals with ICSID tribunals’ power to recommend provisional measures, is not among the provisions listed in Article 52(4) of the ICSID Convention which "shall apply mutatis mutandis" to proceedings before ICSID annulment committees. The omission of Article 47 from the list of the relevant provisions in Article 52(4) suggests that the power of ICSID annulment committees to recommend provisional measures has been intentionally excluded, possibly because under Article 52(5) of the Convention they may stay enforcement of an award pending their decision on annulment, which is effectively a special form of interim relief.49
a. The Applicant’s Application for Provisional Measures is dismissed; and
b. The Parties are reminded of their general obligation to refrain from any conduct that may aggravate the dispute during the pendency of the annulment proceedings.
Already registered ?