concessions in the Arab producing countries

concessions in the Arab producing countries

Iraq in 1925 represented a slight improvement on concession.  Article 40 of the agreement stipulated arbitrators failed upon a referee they were to request to agree  Justic the President of the Permanent Court .

 

Cases successfully Referred to Arbitration Despite the frequent use of arbitration clauses in oil concessions the Middle East,  in practice only a very small number of dspdad have been settled by arbitration.  Differences arising bere countries and concessionaires have usually been negotiations.  In fact,  until the late 1970s,  arbitration pro

ENTITLEMENT DISPUTES UNDER PETROLEUM Agreements THE concessions in the Arab producing countries of the area had been in only four cases,  between:  the Ruler of and Petroleum Development(Qatar),  Ltd.  in 1950;  the eut r on of Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast)  an Co Ltd.

in 1951:  the Ruler of Qatar and the International Marine oil Company Ltd.  in 1953:  and the Government of Saudi Arabia and f the two the Arabian American oil Company(Aramco)  in 1958.  In the on would early 1980s there was also an arbitration case involving the e(con government of Kuwait and the American Independent oil ointment Company(AMINOIL) (1982)  For a complete picture of oil arbitration in the Arab world,  one cle 42)  must include the arbitration cases which were filed against the ination to Libyan government by the oil companies that were nationalized by 1963,  the Libya in the 1970s.

The arbitrator in the case brought by the Libyan ited contract American oil Company(LIAMCO)  against the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic(1977)  was Dr.  Sobhi Mohmassani,  an concession eminent Lebanese jurist and Professor of Law.  In this The following is a summary of the arbitration cases referred to Egypt by above li tio Petroleum Development(Qatar)  Ltd.  vs.  Ruler of Qatar(1950) (the n May 17,  1935,  the Ruler of Qatar entered into a written agreement where he granted exclusive mineral rights to APOC.   APOC assigned its rights and obligations to Petroleum  Ltd.  June 1949,  a dispute occurred regarding the the area that was subject to the rights granted by the 1935 agreement.  ect of the Claim:  To determine the extent of the area that was ons o the rights granted by the concession agreement.  hani Issues:  The award.  as reported,  was limited to the decision without any indication of the reasoning on which it was ons

Decision:  The tribunal held that the concession islands left over which the Sheikh ruled on the date of the concession and subsoil of all the inland or national waters of the the of the State of Qatar and the seab and sulu beneath the territorial waters of the island and the main land of con moe State of Qatar.

The tribunal,  however,  determined their Eng concession did not include the seabed or subsoil beneath line Wer seas of the Arabian Gulf contiguous to the territorial water par Petroleum Development Ltd.  vs.  Sheikh of Abu Dhabi,  19sl sub on January ll,  1939,  Sheikh Shakhbut of Abu Dhabi entered int the written contract with Petroleum Development Ltd,  whereby Ru Sheikh granted the company the exclusive right to drill for,  dishy and produce mineral oil within a certain area in Abu Dhabi li 1949,  the Sheikh purported to transfer mineral rights,  acquired as Ru result of a 1949 proclamation,  concerning the continental res areas,  to a US company,  Petroleum Development claimed tha pa Sheikh could not do so because these rights were granted to under the terms of the 1939 agreement Object of the Claim:  The arbitration was to determine the r of the company with respect to all underwater areas over which Ruler had or may have had sovereignty(continental shelf and seabed).

Relevant Legal Issues:  On the question of the”proper law”  hur was applicable in construing the contract,  the arbitrator held this was a contract”made in Abu Dhabi and wholly be p to co in that country Therefore, “if any municipal system of law were applicable,  it would prime face be that of tribunal found that no such a law could”reasonably ”  However,  exist”  because the Sheikh administered”a purely discretion of it be fanciful suggest that in this very primitive onan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *