Nationalization: According to the tribunal, the decree was a valid exercise of the right of nationalization

Nationalization:  According to the tribunal,  the decree was a valid exercise of the right of nationalization.

The tribunal found that the nationalization was neither confiscatory nor discriminatory.”  The tribunal concluded that the nationalization was not inconsistent with the concession.  Principles of Indemnification:  According to the award,  appropriate compensation”  under the terms of the General Assembly Resolution 1803 was to be determined depending on the circumstances of the case rather than on interpretation of terms such as”prompt,  adequate and effective”  or “fair.”  The tribunal held that compensation was to be assessed with regard to the legitimate expectations of the parties reflected in the equilibrium”  of the contract 2K Decision The tribunal estimated royalties,  taxes due to the Government of Kuwait and liabilities to third parties.  The tribunal also assessed the value of AMINOIL’s compensation.  Both sums were offset,  resulting in a balance in favor of AMI payable on July 1,  1982.

Libyan American oil Company(LIAMCo)  vs.  Government the Libyan Arab Republic,  1977 In 1955 the Libyan Ministry of Petroleum granted three con to the Libyan American oil company(LIAMCO)  Following th revolution in 1969,  the new government of Libya changes in the economic provisions of the concessions,  In promulgated a 1973,  the Libyan Revolutionary Command Council law nationalizing 51 percent of LIAMCO’s concession February 1974,  the remaining 49 percent of LIAMCo’s rights also nationalized.  Although there were provisions in the la compensation,  no compensation was actually offered to LIAMCo Object of the claim:  LIAMCO claimed that the nationalization laws constituted a breach of the concessions.  In the event of LIAMCO not being restored to its concession rights,  LIAMco claimed damages or compensation.

Relevant legal issues Applicable Law:  The tribunal observed that”It is an accepted principle of international law that the arbitral rules of procedure shall be determined by the agreement of the parties,  or in default of agreement,  by decision of the Arbitral Tribunal independently of the local law of the seat of arbitration.  In this case,  in absence of a choice law for the procedure,  the determined that the principles contained in the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1958 were to govern the procedure.  concessions According to the tribunal,  the law governing principles of was to be determined by reference to the general was international law,  which provided that a contract governed by the law expressly or impliedly chosen by the gend nati them right es In the present case,  the law chosen by the parties w law insofar as it was compatible with international law Libyan subsidiary role,  the general principles of law.  The a arbitrator found that,  in general.

Libyan law was in conformity with international law and the general principles of law ity of the Nationalization:  The tribunal observed that the sovereign right of the state to nationalize was recognized in state Celtic and several General Assembly resolutions which reflected the dominant trend of international opinion in this respect.  The tribunal also observed that nationalization is not unlawful as long as it is not discriminatory and is not accompanied by some other wrongful act.  In the view of the arbitrator,  international law no longer inquired into the motives for the nationalization to see if it involved a legitimate public unless those motives were discriminatory.  The tribunal held that,  in the case in question,  the nationalization had not been discriminatory.  Decision:  The arbitrator observed that” restitution in integument is generally impossible in international law Th tribunal considered that restitutio amounted to an order to revoke nationalization.