Assumption of Jurisdiction by Pakistani Supreme Court in Reko Diq Case: Another Violation of International Investment Law
Abstract
Purpose: This paper discusses that Pakistani judicial approach to separability, arbitrability and grounds to assume jurisdictions to decide these mattes does not sit well with the ICSID jurisprudence.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Qualitative approach has been used.
Findings: The Supreme Court’s judgment in Reko Diq is discussed in the light of awards rendered by ICSID to establish that the jurisdiction to decide the separability of arbitration agreement, arbitrability of a dispute or subject matter does not rest with a domestic court where parties have already conferred jurisdiction to determine these matters to ICSID and that Pakistani court cannot use any ground to assume jurisdiction over these matters.
Implications/Originality/Value: The paper concludes that the judicial system of Pakistan needs reforms to formalize and ascertain the role of domestic arbitration councils in alignment with the ICSID. This will help Pakistani firms competing in international markets to get necessary legal support at home in line with international standards.
Downloads
Article Analytics Summary
References
Agreement between Australia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Islamabad, 7 February 1998) Entry into force: 14 October 1998 ,1998 No. 23
Alan Redfem and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, (4th Edition, OUP, 2007)
Alasdair Ross Anderson Et Al v Republic of Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3, May 19, 2010,
Aswan Tentage and Canvas Mills Ltd, Lahore v MA. Razzaq & Company 1993 MLD 243
Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, 14 December 2012
Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2009). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596896
CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Republic of Argentina, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, Case No. ARB/01/8, July 17, 2003
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Annulment, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), 25 September 2007
David St. Jhon Sutton and others, Russel on Arbitration, (23rd edition Sweet & Maxwell, , 2007)
EDF International S.A., SAUR International.A. and LEON Particpacions Argentinas S.A. v. Arggentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, JUNE 11, 2012.
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, August 16, 2007
Fraport v. Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25) (Annulment Proceeding).
Haji Soomar Haji Hajjan v Muhammad AMin Muhammad Bashir Ltd 1981 SCMR 129.
Hitachi Limited v Rupali Polyester 1998 S C M R 1618.
Inceysa Vallisoletana, S.L.v Republic of El Salvador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, August 2, 2006.
Island Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. V/O Technoexpert and another 1979 CLC 307
K. S. B. Pumps Co. Ltd., Lahore v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1979 Karachi 269.
Lahore Stock Exchange Limited v Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan)Ltd PLD 1990 SC 48
Lahore Stock Exchange Limited v Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan) Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 48.
Malicorp v. Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, 7 February 2011.
Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v Government of Balochistan, PLD 2013 SC 641 (Reko Diq Case).
Nelofar Saqib v Saiban Builders and Developers 2011 CLD 341
Nudrat B. Majeed, 'Special Section Commentary on the Hubco judgement' (200) 16 Arbitration International, Issue 4, pp 431-438, 435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/16.4.431
Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24), August 27, 2008
Port Qasim Authority, Karachi v Al-Ghurair Group of Companies P L D 1997 Karachi 636
Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v Plurinational State of Bolivia, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, 27 September 2012
Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) v Republic of Guatemala, Second Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/07/23, May 18, 2010
Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore v Crescent Services, Lahore 1997 S C M R 1928
Sindh v Tausif Ali Khan 2003 CLC 180 [Karachi]
Sir E. Haroon Jaffar & Sons Ltd. v Haji E. Dossa & Sons PLD 1956 Sind 4
Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Revenue Division, Islamabad 2002 S C M R 1694.
Tanzania electric v IPTL, Award, 12 July 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-3747(01)80154-8
The Hub Power Co. v WAPDA 1999 CLC 1320 [Karachi].
The Hub Power Company Limited (HUBCO) v WAPDA PLD 2000 Supreme Court 841.
Tokios Tokelės v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Dissent, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, 29 April 2004.
TSA Spectrum de Argentina SA v. Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/05/5, 19 December 2008.
World Duty Free Company Limited v The Republic of Kenya, Award, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/00/7, 4 October 2006
Copyright (c) 2021 Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Khan, Ikram Ullah, Aisha Tariq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
CSRC Publishing and JBSEE adhere to Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. The authors submitting and publishing in JBSEE agree to the copyright policy under creative common license 4.0 (Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International). Under this license, the authors published in JBSEE retain the copyright including publishing rights of their scholarly work and agree to let others remix, tweak, and build upon their work non-commercially. All other authors using the content of SBSEE are required to cite author(s) and publisher in their work. CSRC Publishing and JBSEE follow an Open Access Policy for copyright and licensing.
