Investor Presentaiton
139
160
SO. Nevertheless, some recent IIAs expressly address the issue of
authoritative interpretations and emphasize their binding nature. For
instance, Article 17(2) of the Mexico-Singapore BIT (2009)
provides: "An interpretation jointly formulated and agreed upon by
the Contracting Parties with regard to any provision of this
Agreement shall be binding on any tribunal established under this
Section."
Other treaties specifically provide for "consultations" on any
matter concerning interpretation. One example can be found in the
Ghana-Netherlands BIT (1989): "Either Contracting Party may
propose [to] the other Party to consult on any matter concerning the
interpretation or application of the Agreement. The other Party
shall accord sympathetic consideration to and shall afford adequate
opportunity for such consultation." (Article 12)
2. Interpretation through IIA institutional
processes
Some IIAs provide for institutionalized cooperation between the
contracting States. Joint commissions or committees consisting of
representatives of the parties are charged with the task of monitoring
the implementation of the treaty. Typically, such bodies may also
issue interpretive statements on treaty provisions. For instance, the
Japan-Mexico FTA (2004) creates a Joint Committee which is
entitled to, inter alia, adopt interpretations of the FTA that are
binding on tribunals (Articles 84 and 165).
The role of such bodies has been tested in the context of
NAFTA. In light of the differing opinions surrounding the content
of the FET standard, the NAFTA Free Trade Commission issued an
160
See Roberts, 2010, p. 179. Argentina and Panama, for example,
exchanged interpretive notes about the appropriate interpretation of the
MFN clause contained in their investment treaty. See National Grid Plc. v.
Argentina, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction, 20 June 2006, para. 85.
UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements IIView entire presentation