Amici Curiae in Investment Arbitration

Investment Law and Arbitration Procedural Issues

Amicus Curiae

I. Definition
II. Types of participation
III. Source of the arbitral tribunals' powers to accept amici curiae's participation
IV. Conditions to allow amici curiae's participation
V. Investment tribunals' considerations to admit amici curiae's interventions
VI. Persons and entities requesting participation as amici curiae
Annex - Amici curiae in investment arbitration

Amici Curiae in Investment Arbitration

I. Definition

The term amicus curiae (plural: amici curiae) is the Latin translation for “friend of the court.”¹ In international investment arbitration, an amicus curiae (sometimes referred to as “non-disputing party”) is any third party that intervenes in certain degree in the proceedings with the view of assisting the arbitral tribunal regarding some of the aspects of a case.² However, allowing written submissions from an amicus curiae is not equivalent to “making that person a party to the arbitration”.³

II. Types of participation

Different persons and entities have requested arbitral tribunals to allow their participation as amici curiae in order to:

obtain access to certain documents of the case;⁴
participate in or attend to oral hearings;⁵ and
make written submissions.⁶

Yet, in those cases in which tribunals have accepted the participation of amici curiae, they have mostly authorized the filing of written submissions and, on occasions, expressly limiting their scope.⁷

On the other hand, tribunals have generally rejected amici curiae’s requests to obtain access to the documents of the case,⁸ although some tribunals have exceptionally accepted this kind of petitions.⁹

In the same vein, tribunals have also generally refused to allow amici curiae to participate in or attend to oral hearings,¹⁰ although there is a precedent in which a petition of this nature was granted.¹¹

III. Source of the arbitral tribunals' powers to accept amici curiae's participation

Arbitral tribunals have found their power to accept amicus curiae’s participation in different instruments and rules, such as:

The North America Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) Free Trade Commission’s Statement on non-disputing party participation of 2003 (the “FTC Statement”).¹²
Article 15(1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.¹³ Prior to the FTC Statement, NAFTA tribunals held that neither NAFTA Chapter Eleven nor the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules expressly allowed or prohibited tribunals to accept amici curiae submissions.¹⁴ Those tribunals considered that their power to accept such submissions could be inferred from their general procedural powers under Article 15(1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules¹⁵ (which however did not allow a tribunal to: (i) add disputing parties to the arbitration; (ii) accord them the substantive rights of a disputing party or a NAFTA member State; or (iii) broaden the subject matter of the arbitration).¹⁶
Article 44 of the ICSID Convention,¹⁷ before the amendment of ICSID’s Arbitration Rules and the entry into force of their Article 37(2) in 2006.
Article 37(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.¹⁸
Article 41(2) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules.¹⁹
Other treaties and rules.²⁰
Other tribunals’ practice, including WTO panels and the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.²¹

IV. Conditions to allow amici curiae's participation

The FTC Statement and the ICSID Arbitration Rules (under which the vast majority of the decisions on the participation of amici curiae was rendered) allow amici curiae’s participation only under certain conditions. Article 37(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, Article 41(2) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules and Point B.6 of the FTC Statement share most of these conditions,²² which are:

The non-disputing party submission must assist the arbitral tribunal in the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceedings by bringing a perspective, particular knowledge or insight that is different from that of the disputing parties;
The non-disputing party submission must address matters within the scope of the dispute; and
The non-disputing party must have a significant interest in the arbitration.²³

Additionally, the FTC Statement requires that there is a public interest in the subject-matter of the arbitration.²⁴

Although these rules provide a useful guidance to arbitral tribunals regarding the conditions amici curiae’s participation must fulfil, investment tribunals have followed different approaches towards the issue and considered that the criteria set out in the FTC Statement are not exhaustive.²⁵ In the end, as shown below, the issue remains, essentially, a factual one, whose assessment must be analysed in the circumstances of each case.

V. Investment tribunals' considerations to admit amici curiae's interventions

10.

To date, 94 petitions to participate as amici curiae were made on 76 different cases (25 in NAFTA cases²⁶ and 69 in non-NAFTA cases²⁷). Of these, 56 petitions were fully accepted (59 per cent),²⁸ four were partially accepted,²⁹ and 34 were rejected by the arbitral tribunals.³⁰ One tribunal has solicited amici curiae participation on its own initiative.³¹

11.

When tribunals have accepted amici curiae’s participation, they have done it mainly based on the following considerations:

the petition addressed matters within the scope of the dispute;³²
the petition did not unduly burden nor unfairly prejudice a disputing party’s submission or disrupt the proceedings;³³
the petitioner had a different expertise, experience or perspective from that of the parties that could assist the tribunal;³⁴
the petitioner had a significant interest in the arbitration;³⁵
there was a public interest in the subject-matter of the arbitration;³⁶
the petitioner was independent from the parties of the arbitration;³⁷ and/or
the petitioner provided a written undertaking that it would bear any costs arising from its intervention.³⁸

12.

On the other hand, tribunals have rejected petitions on the following bases:

the petition addressed a matter outside the scope of the dispute;³⁹
admitting the petition would have imposed an unduly and potentially prejudicial burden on the parties in case it had been accepted;⁴⁰
the petitioner lacked a different expertise, experience or perspective from that of the parties that could have assisted the tribunal;⁴¹
the petitioner lacked a significant interest in the arbitration;⁴²
the petitioner failed to explain the public interest it was seeking to address;⁴³
the petitioner failed to provide the tribunal with sufficient information regarding its petition;⁴⁴
there were doubts as to the petitioner’s independence from the parties;⁴⁵
the absence of the parties’ consent;⁴⁶
the petitioner failed to provide a written undertaking to pay any additional costs incurred by the parties in responding to its submission;⁴⁷
the petitioner was not a person from one of the parties to the applicable treaty nor had any significant presence in its territory;⁴⁸ and/or
the tribunal considered that the petition was premature.⁴⁹

VI. Persons and entities requesting participation as amici curiae

13.

Persons and entities who have requested arbitral tribunals to participate as amici curiae to date included:

39 non-governmental and non-profit organizations;⁵⁰
15 commercial, civil, labour and social associations;⁵¹
7 private companies;⁵²
8 groups of academics or research centres;⁵³
7 individuals;⁵⁴
5 indigenous communities;⁵⁵ and
4 international organizations.⁵⁶

14.

The entity with more petitions to intervene as amicus curiae granted to date is the European Commission, with thirty-four petitions granted⁵⁷ and thirteen rejected.⁵⁸ Additionally, arbitral tribunals have accepted every petition filed by other international organizations⁵⁹ and by civil, labour or social associations to date.⁶⁰ Nevertheless, tribunals have generally been more cautious when allowing the participation as amici curiae of private entities (five petitions rejected⁶¹ and four accepted⁶²); individuals (five petitions rejected⁶³ and only one accepted⁶⁴); non-governmental and non-profit organizations (thirteen petitions accepted⁶⁵ and six rejected⁶⁶); indigenous communities (one petition accepted⁶⁷ and one rejected⁶⁸); and groups of academics and research centres (three petitions accepted⁶⁹ and two rejected⁷⁰).

Annex - Amici curiae in investment arbitration

No.	Case	Petitioner(s)	Decision	Date
NAFTA cases
1	United Parcel Service of America Inc. (UPS) v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1	(i) The Canadian Union of Postal Workers and (ii) the Council of Canadians	Granted	1 August 2003
2	Methanex Corporation v. United States of America	(i) The Communities for Better Environment (ii) the Bluewater Network of Earth Island Institute and (iii) the Center for International Environmental Law	Granted	6 April 2004
3	Methanex Corporation v. United States of America	The International Institute for Sustainable Development	Granted	6 April 2004
4	Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America	The Quechan Indian Nation	Granted	15 February 2007
5		Sierra Club and Earthworks	Granted
6		(i) Friends of the Earth Canada and (ii) Friends of the Earth United States	Granted
7		National Mining Association	Granted
8	Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1	(i) Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, (ii) the United Steelworkers and (iii) the British Columbia Federation of Labour	Granted	2 October 2008
9	Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. UNCT/10/2	Business Neatness Magnanimity BNM srl	Rejected	11 October 2011
10	Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1	Business Neatness Magnanimity BNM srl	Rejected	4 March 2013
11		Mr. Barry Appleton	Rejected	4 March 2013
12	Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2	Canadian Chamber of Commerce	Granted	23 February 2016
13		Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association	Granted
14		(i) Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and (ii) the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy	Granted
15		Intellectual property law professors from universities in the United States	Granted
16		National Association of Manufacturers	Granted
17		A group of academics from the US, UK, Switzerland, South Africa and Nepal	Partially granted
18		Three professors from the University of Cambridge	Rejected
19		(i) Innovative Medicines Canada and (ii) BIOTECanada	Rejected
20		(i) Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (ii) Mexican Association of the Research Based Pharmaceutical Industry and (iii) Biotechnology Innovation Organization	Rejected
21	Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2	Mr. Iván Mercado	Rejected	23 May 2017
22	Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, PCA Case No. 2016-13	(i) Mr. Barry Appleton and (ii) Prof. Robert Howse	Rejected	29 June 2017
23	Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/2	Mr. Muhammad Muzahidul Islam	Rejected	10 September 2017
24		Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement	Granted	10 September 2017
25	Alicia Grace and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/4	(i) Alterna Capital Partners LLC, (ii) Asia Research & Capital Management Ltd., (iii) Contrarian Capital Management LLC, (iv) CQS LLP, (v) GHL Investments Ltd. and (vi) Ship Finance International Limited	Rejected	24 June 2019
Non-NAFTA cases
26	Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3	Earthjustice	Rejected	29 January 2003
27	Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17	(i) Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable, (ii) Prof. Ricardo (iii) Ignacio Beltramino, (iv) Ms. Ana María Herren, and (v) Mr. Omar Darío Heffes	Rejected	17 March 2006
28	Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22	(i) Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team, (ii) Legal and Human Rights Centre, (iii) Tanzania Gender Networking Programme, (iv) Center for International Environmental Law and (v) International Institute for Sustainable Development	Granted	2 February 2007
29	Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Aguas Argentinas, S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A.) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19	(i) Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia, (ii) Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, (iii) Center for International Environmental Law, (iv) Consumidores Libres Cooperativa Ltda. de Provisión de Servicios de Acción Comunitaria, and (v) Unión de Usuarios y Consumidores	Granted	12 February 2007
30	AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v. Republic of Hungary (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22	European Commission	Granted	26 November 2008
31	Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19	European Commission	Granted	28 April 2009
32	Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20	European Commission	Granted	15 May 2009
33	Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v. Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/01	(i) Centre for Applied Legal Studies, (ii) Center for International Environment Law, (iii) International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights, and (iv) Legal Resources Centre	Granted	5 October 2009
34		International Commission of Jurists	Granted	5 October 2009
35	Achmea B.V. (formerly Eureko B.V.) v. Slovak Republic (I), PCA Case No. 2008-13	European Commission	Invitation of the tribunal	26 October 2010
36		The Netherlands	Invitation of the tribunal	26 October 2010
37	Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12	(i) Comité Ambiental de Cabañas, (ii) Asociación Amigos de San Isidro Cabañas, (iii) Asociación de Comunidades para el Desarrollo de Chalatenango, (iv) Asociación de Desarrollo Económico y Social, (v) Asociación para El Desarrollo de El Salvador, (vi) Fundación de Estudios para la Aplicación del Derecho, (vii) Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña and (viii) Movimiento Unificado Francisco Sánchez	Granted	23 March 2011
38	Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2009-23	(i) Fundación Pachamama and (ii) International Institute for Sustainable Development	Rejected	18 April 2011
39	Border Timbers Limited, Timber Products International (Private) Limited and Hangani Development Co. (Private) Limited v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/25	(i) European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and (ii) four indigenous communities	Rejected	26 June 2012
39	Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15		Rejected	26 June 2012
40	Charanne B.V. and Construction Investments S.A.R.L. v. Spain, SCC Case No. 062/2012	European Commission	Granted	26 November 2014
41	Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. V2013/153	European Commission	Granted	12 December 2014
42	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	(i) World Health Organization and (ii) World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat	Granted	17 February 2015
43		Pan American Health Organization	Granted	24 March 2015
44	Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr. Michael Göde v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01	European Commission	Rejected	5 March 2015
45	Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1	European Commission	Granted	20 March 2015
46	I.C.W. Europe Investments Limited v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-22	European Commission	Rejected	9 April 2015
47	Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs-GmbH v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-21	European Commission	Rejected	9 April 2015
48	Voltaic Network GmbH v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-20	European Commission	Rejected	9 April 2015
49	WA Investments-Europa Nova Limited v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-19	European Commission	Rejected	9 April 2015
50	Jürgen Wirtgen, Stefan Wirtgen, Gisela Wirtgen and JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co. KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-03	European Commission	Granted	22 September 2015
51	Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3	European Commission	Granted	30 October 2015
52	NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11	European Commission	Granted	6 January 2016
53	Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36	European Commission	Rejected	8 January 2016
54	Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5	Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre	Granted	1 June 2016
55	RWE Innogy GmbH and RWE Innogy Aersa S.A.U. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34	European Commission	Granted	13 July 2016
56	Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21	(i) Association of Human Rights and Environment of Puno and (ii) Mr. Carlos López-Hurtado	Granted	21 July 2016
57		Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment	Rejected	21 July 2016
58	Belenergia S.A. v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40	European Commission	Granted	16 December 2016
59	Greentech Energy Systems A/S, NovEnergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) SICAR, and NovEnergia II Italian Portfolio SA v. Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/095	European Commission	Granted	17 January 2017
60	Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50	European Commission	Granted	10 February 2017
61	Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34	European Commission	Granted	21 February 2017
62	SunReserve Luxco Holdings SRL v. Italian Republic, SCC Case No. 132/2016	European Commission	Granted	16 March 2017
63	Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063	European Commission	Granted	24 March 2017
64	Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.À.R.L., et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/150	European Commission	Granted	27 March 2017
65	BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16	European Commission	Rejected	4 April 2017
66	Stadtwerke München GmbH and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1	European Commission	Rejected	11 April 2017
67	OperaFund Eco-Invest SICAV PLC and Schwab Holding AG v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/36	European Commission	Granted	13 June 2017
68	ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH, ESPF Nr. 2 Austria Beteiligungs GmbH, and InfraClass Energie 5 GmbH & Co. KG v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5	European Commission	Granted	22 August 2017
69	UP and C.D Holding Internationale v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35	European Commission	Rejected	27 August 2018
70	Magyar Farming Company Ltd, Kintyre Kft and Inicia Zrt v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/27	European Commission	Granted	5 September 2018
71	United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/14/24	European Commission	Granted	2 October 2018
72	AS PNB Banka and others v. Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/47	European Commission	Granted	30 October 2018
73	Strabag SE, Raiffeisen Centrobank AG, Syrena Immobilien Holding AG v. The Republic of Poland, ICSID Case No. ADHOC/15/1	European Commission	Granted	2 November 2018
74	Hydro Energy 1 S.à r.l. and Hydroxana Sweden AB v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/42	European Commission	Granted	19 November 2018
75	9REN Holding S.a.r.l v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15	European Commission	Rejected	26 November 2018
76		European Commission	Granted	19 November 2021
77	Spółdzielnia Pracy Muszynianka v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-08	European Commission	Granted	27 November 2018
78	STEAG GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/4	European Commission	Granted	5 December 2018
79	Sevilla Beheer B.V. and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/27	European Commission	Partially granted	13 December 2018
80	Rockhopper Exploration Plc, Rockhopper Italia S.p.A. and Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14	European Commission	Rejected	18 December 2018
81	Raiffeisen Bank International AG and Raiffeisenbank Austria d.d. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/34	European Commission	Granted	31 December 2018
82	GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168	European Commission	Granted	8 January 2019
83	Theodoros Adamakopoulos, Ilektra Adamantidou, Vasileios Adamopoulos and others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/49	European Commission	Granted	9 January 2019
84	Addiko Bank AG and Addiko Bank d.d. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/37	European Commission	Granted	21 January 2019
85	Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41	(i) Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, (ii) Center for International Environmental Law, (iii) Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, (iv) MiningWatch Canada, (v) Institute for Policy Studies - Global Economy Project, and (vi) Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations	Rejected	18 February 2019
86	A.M.F. Aircraftleasing Meier & Fischer GmbH & Co. KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-15	European Commission	Granted	5 April 2019
87	Daniel W. Kappes and Kappes, Cassidy & Associates v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/43	La Puya	Rejected	7 November 2019
88	UP and C.D Holding Internationale (formerly Le Cheque Dejeuner) v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35	European Commission	Granted	27 December 2019
89	Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20	European Commission	Rejected	2 April 2020
90	Sodexo Pass International SAS v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/20	European Commission	Rejected	22 January 2021
91	Gran Colombia Gold Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23	Asociación Mutual de Mineros “El Cogote”	Partially granted	31 August 2021
92	GCM Mining Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/23	Asociación Mutual de Mineros “El Cogote”	Partially granted	31 August 2021
93	Angel Samuel Seda and others v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/6	Mr. Victor Mosquera Marín	Rejected	1 December 2021
94	Odyssey Marine Exploration v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/1	Center for International Environmental Law & Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Puerto Chale S.C.L.	Rejected	20 December 2021