The "unclean hands", or alternatively the "dirty hands"1 or "clean hands"2 doctrine provides that a court will not lend its aid if a claimant's cause of action is based on an unlawful act.3 It is derived from the English courts of equity4 and then developed in the Anglo-American legal tradition.5 As at today, it is found in most, if not all, legal traditions.6
There is no generally accepted definition of this doctrine in international law and its status as a principle of international law remains debated.7 This is due to different types of circumstances in which this doctrine has been used in practice, the varying nomenclature given to the underlying concept, the lack of consensus regarding the source of the obligation and the different consequences of having “unclean hands”.
Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., 2012, p. 701.
Schwebel, S.M., Clean Hands, Principle, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Online Edition, 2009.
See also Güriş and others v. Syria, Final Award where the tribunal notes that "the unclean hands must be those of the investor, not those of its home State".
Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson, p. 77; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 646; (1) Mr Idris Yamantürk (2) Mr Tevfik Yamantürk (3) Mr Müsfik Hamdi Yamantürk (4) Güriş İnşaat ve Mühendislik Anonim Şirketi (Güris Construction and Engineering Inc) v. Syrian Arab Republic, ICC Case No. 21845/ZF/AYZ, Final Award, 31 August 2020, para. 224.
Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197; Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341; Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U.S. 383, 387 (1944); Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933); Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson, p. 77; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 477.
ICC No. 1110, Award, 1963, p. 291:
“Ce principe est admis dans tous les pays et par toutes les legislations. Il constitute une règle international, un élément du droit commun des contrats dans le domaine international” which translates to “in any civilised country”
ICC No. 2730, Award, 1984:
“This principle is admitted in all nations and by all legislators. It constitutes an international rule, an element of the common law of contracts in international affairs."
Lagerwall, A., Le principe ex injuria jus non oritur en droit international, 2016, p. 37.
Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Order - Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 2 June 1999, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, p. 64; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, Dissenting opinion, Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, p. 161, para. 35; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, para. 63; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 418; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 317; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 477; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 646; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants’ Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para 149; South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 30 August 2018 paras. 439-453; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore [2022] SGCA(I) 9, 24 November 2022, paras. 37-41.
Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 47, 2014, Principles of Equitable Jurisdiction, Section 8, para. 112.
Le Moullec, C., The Clean Hands Doctrine: A Tool for Accountability of Investor Conduct and Inadmissibility of Investment Claims, in Brekoulakis, S. (ed.), Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 84, Issue 1, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), 2018, p. 12:
“The clean hands doctrine originates in common law jurisdictions where it evolved as part of the development of equity. Often explained through the maxim, ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands’, the doctrine has played an important role in ensuring that a claimant that has itself done a wrong (i.e. came ‘with unclean hands’) does not benefit from the remedies available at equity.”
Sanum Investments v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award, 6 August 2019, para. 104; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 477; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 493.
Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 418; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358-1359; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358-1359; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358-1359, 1362-1363; South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 22 November 2018, paras. 443-453; Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 and 12/14, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 493; Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 January 2018, para. 46; Sanum Investments v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award, 6 August 2019, para. 104; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 477; Dumberry, P., State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in Investment Arbitration After the Yukos Award, 17 Journal of World Investments and Trade, 2016, pp. 229-230; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (Unofficial English Translation), 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.2.6; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (Unofficial English Translation), 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.2.6; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (Unofficial English Translation), 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.2.6; Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016, para. 273; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award, 6 August 2019, para. 106; Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. V 2015/092, Final Award, 4 February 2021, para. 438.
The source of the obligation can be traced to general principles of law or public policy, either international or transnational.8 However, other tribunals take an opposite view.9
However, due to the controversy surrounding the doctrine’s nature, some courts and tribunals prefer avoiding the question altogether, basing their reasoning on the special provisions of the applicable law.12
ICC No. 1110, Award, 1963, p. 261.
Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), PCIJ Series A. No 9, Judgment, 26 July 1927, p. 31; Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson, p. 76; Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, Dissenting Opinion of M. Anzilotti, p. 50; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, 24 May 1980, Dissenting Opinion, Judge Morozov, p. 53; Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Order – Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 2 June 1999, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, p. 64; LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 2001, para. 42; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 249; World Duty Free Company v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 157; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 143; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 101; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 124.
Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358, 1363; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358, 1363; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1358, 1363; South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 30 August 2018 para. 453.
Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para. 84; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 127; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 164; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (“Bapex”) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (“Petrobangla”), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 478; Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment – Preliminary Objections, 2 February 2017, para. 143.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, para. 63; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 236; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 396; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 143; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 123; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (“Bapex”) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (“Petrobangla”), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 476; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award, 6 August 2019, para. 106.
Fouchard, P., Gaillard, E., Goldma, B., Traité de l’arbitrage commercial international, 1996, p. 368.
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 240-244; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 141; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1350; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1350; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1350; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 328; Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V. and Cauc Holding Company Ltd. v. the Government of Mongolia and Monatom Co., Ltd., PCA Case No. 2011-09, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 July 2012, para. 383; Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Award), para. 17; Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. V 2015/092, Final Award, 4 February 2021, paras. 440-441; Bank Melli Iran (Iran) and Bank Saderat Iran (Iran) v. The Kingdom of Bahrain, PCA Case No. 2017-25, Final Award, 9 November 2021, para. 375.
Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1360; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1360; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1360; Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award, 8 July 2016, paras. 348, 384-385.
Despite the lack of a singular definition, scholars have often defined the clean hands principle as a bar to claims introduced by parties involved in illegal activities.17 As such, commentators have expressed the view that the legality requirement is an expression of the clean hands doctrine.18 See further Legality of investment.
Similarly, arbitral tribunals may refer to this doctrine when dealing with the “legality requirement”,19 without explicitly distinguishing the two notions.20 Some tribunals have however seemed to suggest that there is a difference.21
Furthermore, tribunals have considered corruption as one of the facets of the unclean hands doctrine.22
Le Moullec, C., The Clean Hands Doctrine: A Tool for Accountability of Investor Conduct and Inadmissibility of Investment Claims, in Brekoulakis, S. (ed.), Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 84, Issue 1, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), p. 17:
“For Brownlie, the clean hands doctrine is a principle ‘according to which a claimant's involvement in activity illegal under either municipal or international law may bar the claim’. It ‘recognizes that a person who asks for redress must present himself with clean hands’. In the context of state-to-state disputes, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice similarly argued that states which have acted illegally may, by virtue of the clean hands doctrine, be ‘deprived of the necessary locus standi in judicio for complaining of corresponding illegalities on the part of other States’.”
Le Moullec, C., The Clean Hands Doctrine: A Tool for Accountability of Investor Conduct and Inadmissibility of Investment Claims, in Brekoulakis, S. (ed.), Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 84, Issue 1, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), pp. 22, 23:
“Some bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (ITs) include provisions which require that investments be made in compliance with the laws and regulations of the host state. These have been said to ‘embody’ the clean hands doctrine. [...] Upholding both arguments, arbitral tribunals have held that IAW provisions affect the jurisdiction of the tribunal. By requiring the foreign investor to comply with the IT'slegality requirement and rejecting its claims when it found a breach of the IT's provision tribunals have in effect required the investor to come forward with ‘clean hands’. They have accepted that part of their role is to verify compliance with the legislation of the host state, and denied their jurisdiction when it is found that the investment has not complied with the host state's legal framework. Importantly, this assessment conditioned the investor's access to the tribunal and thus to investment treaty protection. Therefore where an IAW provision is found in the IT, breaches of host state law will act to exclude ‘unclean’ investors from the IT's protection under international treaty law.”
Moloo, R., A Comment on the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law, 2010, p. 7; De Alba Uribe, M., Drawing the Line: Addressing Allegations of Unclean Hands in Investment Arbitration, Brazilian Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2015, p. 324.
Note that the following tribunals refer to the legality requirement or jurisprudence on the legality requirement when addressing the clean hands doctrine.
Amianto, L., The Role of “Unclean Hands” Defences in International Investment Law, McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 2019-2020, p. 8; Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award, 22 August 2016, para. 492; Convial Callao S.A. and CCI - Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2, Final Award, 21 May 2013, para. 480; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 328.
Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1357; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1357; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1357; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 328.
World Duty Free Company v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, paras. 157, 178-179; Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Award), para. 17; Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. V 2015/092, Final Award, 4 February 2021, para. 485.
Different tribunals have considered different factors to identify the existence of “unclean hands”.
The Diversion of Waters from the Meuse (Netherlands v. Belgium), P.C.I.J. (Ser. A/B) No. 70, Judgment, 28 June 1937, p. 16; Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Dissenting Opinion of M. Anzilotti, p. 50; Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson, p. 77; LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 2001, para. 42; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 421; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (“Bapex”) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (“Petrobangla”), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, paras. 480-483.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, PCIJ Series A/B. No 53, Dissenting Opinion by Judge Anzilotti, 5 April 1933, p. 95; Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), PCIJ Series A. No 9, Judgment, 26 July 1927, p. 31; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 242, 250; World Duty Free Company v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 157; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 401; Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016, para 264.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, 24 May 1980, Dissenting opinion Judge Tarazi, p. 63-64; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 25 September 1997, para. 110; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, Dissenting opinion, Judge ad hoc Vanden Wyngaert, para. 35.
Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B. No 70, 28 June 1937, Judgment, Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson, p. 77; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, 24 May 1980, Dissenting Opinion, Judge Morozov, p. 53; Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Order – Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 2 June 1999, para. 19; Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), 2 June 1999, Order - Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, p. 64; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 645.
Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para. 86; LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006, para. 83; Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 104; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 138; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 372.
Having “unclean hands” can influence an adjudicative body's jurisdiction,36 a claim’s admissibility,37 the substantive solution of the dispute38 and any post-award proceedings.
ICC Award No. 4145, Second Interim Award, Clunet 1985, at 985 et seq.
ICC Award No. 3913, cited by Derains, Y., note to ICC Award No. 2730, Clunet 1984, at 918 et seq.
Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), PCIJ Series A. No 9, Judgment, 26 July 1927, p. 31; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para. 93; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, para. 65; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 401; Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, paras. 105, 139; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 102; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 127; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 121; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 374; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants’ Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para 149; Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. V 2015/092, Final Award, 4 February 2021, para. 485.
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, 31 March 2004, para. 45, 48; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 422; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 481; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 646; Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment - Preliminary Objections, 2 February 2017, para. 144; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, PCA Case No. 2016-13, Final Award, 25 July 2022, para. 760.
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment - Merits, 6 November 2003, para. 29; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 252; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 422; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 325; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 143; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 647.
As to jurisdiction, tribunals have found that a claimant’s unclean hands can deprive them of their competence to rule on a legal dispute.39
ICC Award No. 4145, Second Interim Award, Clunet 1985, at 985 et seq.
ICC Award No. 3913, cited by Derains, Y., note to ICC Award No. 2730, Clunet 1984, at 918 et seq.
Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), PCIJ Series A. No 9, Judgment, 26 July 1927, page. 31; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para. 93; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, para. 65; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 401; Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, paras. 105, 139; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 102; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 127; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 121; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 374.
As to the inadmissibility of claims invoked by respondent States,40 tribunals have considered that, although competent, claimant’s actions barred it from requesting a legal remedy.41 However, tribunals have required that such objections be timely.42
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 210; Krederi Ltd. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17, Award, 2 July 2018, paras. 384-394; Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21, Award, 30 November 2017, paras. 327-328; Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 10 November 2017, para. 671; Bank Melli Iran (Iran) and Bank Saderat Iran (Iran) v. The Kingdom of Bahrain, PCA Case No. 2017-25, Final Award, 9 November 2021, paras. 362, 365; Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, PCA Case No. 2016-13, Final Award, 25 July 2022, para. 760.
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, 31 March 2004, para. 45, 48; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 422; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited ("Bapex") and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation ("Petrobangla"), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 481; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 646; Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment - Preliminary Objections, 2 February 2017, para. 144; Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2012-02, Award, 15 March 2016, para. 5.62.
Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2012-02, Award, 15 March 2016, paras. 5.62-5.64; Infracapital F1 S.à r.l. and Infracapital Solar B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, 13 September 2021, paras. 478, 486-487.
Other tribunals have considered that claimant’s actions do not bar its legal action, nor deprive the tribunal of their competence to rule, but affected the substantive solution,43 including the way damages are accorded.44
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment - Merits, 6 November 2003, para. 29; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 252; Delimitation of maritime boundary (Guyana v. Suriname), PCA Case No. 2004-04, Award, 17 September 2007, para. 422; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 325; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 143; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 647; Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. Russia, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009, para. 492; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russia, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009, para. 492; Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. Russia, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009, para. 492.
Finally, with regards to post-award remedies, unclean hands would bar a party from demanding the stay or continued stay of enforcement of an award.45 See further Stay of enforcement of ICSID awards and Stay of enforcement of non-ICSID awards.
On the Unclean Hands Argument at the annulment stage, see NextEra v. Spain and InfraRed v. Spain.
InfraRed Environmental Infrastructure GP Limited and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/12, Decision on the Continuation of the Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 27 October 2020, para. 133; NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11, Decision on Annulment, 18 March 2022, para. 210; InfraRed Environmental Infrastructure GP Limited and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/12, Decision on Annulment, 10 June 2022, para. 436-442.
Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration, Vol. I, 2009, p. 411-516.
Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 2006, p. 155-158.
Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., 2012, p. 701.
Fouchard, P., Gaillard, E. and Goldman, B., Traité de l’arbitrage commercial international, 1996, p. 367-369 and p. 825-840.
Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 47, 2014, Principles of Equitable Jurisdiction, Section 8, para. 112.
Kosheri, A.S. and Leboulanger, P., L’arbitre face à la corruption et aux traffics d’influence, Revue de l’arbitrage, 1984, p. 3.
Lagerwall, A., Le principe ex injuria jus non oritur en droit international, 2016.
Seraglini, C., Lois de police et justice arbitrale internationale, 2001.
Seraglini, C. and Ortscheidt, J., Droit de l’arbitrage interne et international, 2013, p. 535-573.
Already registered ?