1

FIRST ARGENTINE COURT RULING REGARDING THE

ENFORCEMENT OF ICSID AWARDS1

By JULIAN BORDAÇAHAR

ABSTRACT

Despite being the State that has received the highest amount of ICSID claims (51 out of 543

registered cases), no decision concerning the enforcement of ICSID awards against

Argentina had ever been rendered in its own territory. As a result, even though the recent

decision issued in the CCI Case does not involve the Argentine Republic as a party, it

certainly becomes relevant in view of the impact that it may have on future enforcement

proceedings against the Argentine State. Therefore, the object of this paper is to analyze the

court's decision and try to draw some conclusions on how the courts interpreted and applied

the ICSID Convention vis-à-vis Argentine legislation while being confronted with an

enforcement request by the Republic of Peru.

1 This paper is an adaptation of the original paper which has been published by (i) the arbitration blog

"Global Arbitration News", available at: http://globalarbitrationnews.com/20150818-argentina-

first-court-ruling-regarding-the-enforcement-of-icsid-awards/; and (ii) Lexis Nexis UK, available at: https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/arbitration/document/412012/5H2B-TWG1-DYW7-W0M0-00000-

00/Argentina%E2%80%94first-court-ruling-on-enforcement-of-ICSID-award-(CCI). In addition, (iii) a similar

and adapted Spanish version of the article has also been published in Argentina by El Diario La Ley, available

at: < http://www.laleyonline.com.ar/> AR/JUR/33122/2015.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3

B. THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................... 3

C. THE ARBITRAL AWARD ..................................................................................................... 5

D. THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ARGENTINA ......................................................... 5

1. Peru’s Claim .................................................................................................................. 5

2. The First Instance Judge’s Ruling .............................................................................. 6

3. Where did the First Instance Judge get it wrong? ..................................................... 6

4. The Court of Appeals’ Ruling ...................................................................................... 7

5. Analysis of the ruling by the Court of Appeals .......................................................... 8

E. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS .............................................................................. 11

3

FIRST ARGENTINE COURT RULING REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF ICSID AWARDS

by JULIAN BORDAÇAHAR2

A. INTRODUCTION

1. On August 18, 2015, the chamber A of the Buenos Aires Commercial Court of Appeals (the

"Court of Appeals") decided on the case involving CCI - Compañía de Concesiones de

Infraestructura S.A. ("CCI") and the Republic of Peru (the "CCI Case")3 in a groundbreaking

decision that represents the first judicial precedent regarding the enforcement of ICSID

awards in Argentina.

2. Despite being the State that has received the highest amount of ICSID claims (51 out of 543

registered cases), no decision concerning the enforcement of ICSID awards against Argentina

was ever rendered in its own territory. As a result, even though the decision issued in the CCI

Case does not involve the Argentine Republic as a party, it certainly becomes relevant in view

of the impact that it may have on future enforcement proceedings against the Argentine State.

3. For this reason, this article aims to provide a brief overview and analysis of the decisions

issued by the first instance judge (the "Judge") and the Court of Appeals vis-à-vis the

potential effect of these decisions on future cases.

B. THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

4. On February 2, 2010, Convial Callao S.A. ("Convial") and CCI (the "Claimants") filed a

request for arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

("ICSID Centre") against the Republic of Peru.4

2 Julian Bordacahar is an associate in Baker & McKenzie’s Buenos Aires office. He practices litigation and

international and domestic arbitration. He has been involved in several proceedings administered by the ICC and

local arbitral institutions. He graduated from the School of Law of the University of Buenos Aires where he also

completed a Masters Program in Oil & Gas. In addition, he teaches both International Commercial, and

Investment Arbitration, and coaches the University's Vis Moot and FDI Moot teams.

3 CCI - Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. s/ Pedido de Quiebra (por República de Perú),

Juzgado Nacional en lo Comercial N° 3, Secretaría N° 6, Exp., N° 8030/2015.

4 Claimants relied on the Argentina - Peru BIT for bringing their claim. While CCI is an Argentine company,

Convial is a company constituted under the laws of Peru. However, since CCI exercised effective control of

Convial through its shares, the Tribunal found that Convial was an “Argentine national” according to the

4

5. The Claimants, highway construction companies, had concluded a concession contract with

the Municipalidad Provincial del Callao. The purpose of the contract was the design,

construction, administration, exploitation and maintenance of the "Vía Expresa del Callao",

an important highway that leads to Peru’s main International Airport.

6. The Claimants alleged that such concession contract and all of the resources devoted to its

implementation constituted a protected investment under the Bilateral Investment Treaty

concluded between the Republic of Argentina and the Republic of Peru (the "BIT").

Furthermore, the Claimants alleged that through the illegal acts of one of its municipalities,

Peru was liable for violating certain legal standards contained in the BIT, which granted

Claimants specific legal protections for their investments.

7. Particularly, Claimants requested the arbitral Tribunal to find Peru liable for (i) expropriating

Claimants’ investment; (ii) violating the Fair and Equitable standard; (iii) adopting unjustified

and discriminatory measures against Claimants’ investment; (iv) violating the Full Protection

and Security Standard; and (v) granting Claimants’ investment less favorable treatment

vis-à-vis other investments from nationals of other States. As a result, Claimants requested the

arbitral Tribunal to grant compensation in the amount of approximately USD105 million.

8. In addition, Claimants requested the Tribunal to grant USD1 million by way of moral

damages. Even though this is not the first case where a legal entity seeks this kind of remedy

in the context of investment arbitration,5 its admissibility remains highly controversial.

6

9. Peru, on the other hand, contested the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis of two alternative

grounds: (i) that Claimants’ investment was not made in conformity with Peru’s laws and

regulations and hence, it could not benefit from the protections granted by the BIT; and (ii)

that Claimants’ claims were merely contractual –as opposed to treaty claims– which

precluded the Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction. In addition, Peru denied having

definition of Art. 1(2) of the Argentina – Peru BIT and Art. 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention, and was

therefore entitled to rely on the protections granted by the BIT.

5 See, for example, Desert Line Projects LLC v. The Republic of Yemen (ICSID case ARB/05/17), Award issued

on February 6, 2008.

6 Unfortunately, this case did not shed any light on the issue since the Tribunal did not get to address it because

it found that Peru did not breach any treaty obligation towards the Claimants.

5

committed any breach and thus requested the Tribunal to dismiss the entirety of Claimant’s

claims and reimburse Peru for the costs incurred in the proceedings.

C. THE ARBITRAL AWARD

10. On May 15, 2013, the Tribunal (composed by Prof. Brigitte Stern, Dr. Eduardo Zuleta, and

chaired by Mr. Yves Derains), issued its final award (the "Award"). After having concluded

that it had jurisdiction, the Tribunal found that Peru had not violated any legal standard of the

BIT and that it should not therefore be held liable.

11. Finally, the Tribunal issued its decision on the costs of the proceedings. In so doing, it

considered that, while Peru had been unsuccessful in proving the Tribunal’s lack of

jurisdiction, it had prevailed in the merits of the claim.

12. In this context, while Claimants should in principle bear the costs of the proceedings for being

the losing party, the Tribunal concluded that the Claimants would only have to pay for half of

the costs incurred by Peru. Since Peru’s costs in the arbitration amounted to

USD4,234,978.53, Claimants were ordered to pay the sum of USD2,117,489.27.

D. THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ARGENTINA

13. After several unsuccessful attempts to collect payment of the costs awarded, Peru decided to

enforce the Award in Argentina against CCI.

1. Peru’s Claim

14. On April 4, 2015, the Republic of Peru initiated enforcement proceedings before a first

instance commercial court sitting in Buenos Aires. In addition, Peru requested the Judge to

declare CCI’s bankruptcy. Only a few weeks later, on April 23, 2015, the Judge issued its

ruling on the enforcement of the Award.

15. Peru argued that pursuant to Art. 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, the Award should be

enforced as if it were a final judgment issued by an Argentine Court. Thus, there was no need

for an exequatur proceeding.

16. Art. 54(1) states that: "[e]ach Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant

to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award

within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. A Contracting

6

State with a federal constitution may enforce such an award in or through its federal courts

and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if it were a final judgment of the

courts of a constituent state" (emphasis added).

17. According to Peru’s position, to the extent that it was able to furnish a copy of the Award

certified by ICSID’s Secretary-General –in accordance with Art. 54(2) of the ICSID

Convention– the Judge would be compelled to directly enforce the Award.

2. The First Instance Judge’s Ruling

18. Relying on the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code (the "NCCPC"), the Judge

concluded that foreign awards are not exempted from going through the exequatur

enforcement proceedings. He then went on to explain the rationale behind this by citing

several European Union Regulations (all of which address the principle of mutual recognition

between foreign judicial judgments as opposed to foreign arbitral awards).

19. In addition and after analyzing the second sentence of Art. 54(1) of the ICSID Convention,

the Judge concluded that the ICSID Convention does not provide for any direct enforcement

mechanism that would justify avoiding the exequatur proceedings.

20. Finally, the Judge stated that even if —for the sake of argument— he were to accept the idea

that the Award enforcement would be exempted from exequatur proceedings, the existence of

a liquid and enforceable credit (a necessary prerequisite for declaring bankruptcy) had not

been proven by Peru because (i) CCI had not been served notice of the Award in accordance

with Art. 49(1) of the ICSID Convention; and (ii) the Award did not stipulate that CCI and

Convial were severally liable for reimbursing Peru’s costs.

3. Where did the First Instance Judge get it wrong?

21. It seems that the Judge bypassed the first sentence of Art. 54(1) of the ICSID Convention.

Moreover, he may have also misconstrued its second sentence.

22. In its ruling, the Judge did not make any reference whatsoever to the first sentence of Art.

54(1) nor to 54(3), i.e. to the binding nature of the Award for each Contracting State

[Argentina] and to the enforcement proceeding to be applied "as if it were a final judgment

issued by an Argentine Court".

7

23. Not only that, but the Judge concluded that the ICSID Convention does not provide for any

direct enforcement mechanism that would justify avoiding going through the exequatur

proceedings. However, the prevailing view is that if there is one thing that distinguishes

ICSID awards from other arbitral awards, it is the self-sufficient enforcement proceeding

provided by the ICSID Convention, whose main effect is precisely to avoid exequatur

proceedings. Irrespective of that, any award should be enforced as if it were a local judgment

and therefore, local laws may come then into play.

24. Then, the Judge quoted and assessed the second sentence of Art. 54(1). To my view, the

Judge relied on the non-compulsory language evidenced by the wording "[a] Contracting

State with a federal constitution may enforce such an award … as if it were a final judgment

of the courts of a constituent state" (emphasis added).

25. But this provision aims solely towards States that have a federal constitution and allows

Contracting States for a certain degree of discretion—not for ignoring the binding nature of

the award but only for enforcing it through a federal court. In this context, the Judge's finding

that it was not bound to recognize the Award as if it were an Argentine judgment because it

was within its discretion not to do so may have been the result of a misconstruction of the

provision.

26. Additionally, it seems that the Judge considered that the final part of the second sentence of

Art. 54(1) allowed Argentina to treat the Award as if it were a final judgment issued by a

court of another ICSID Contracting State, instead of treating it as a final judgment issued by

an Argentinean national court, which is in fact what such provision states. This is probably the

reason why the Judge analyzed certain European Union Regulations dealing with the

recognition of foreign judgments, a treaty not applicable to the enforcement of ICSID awards.

4. The Court of Appeals’ Ruling

27. On June 10, 2015, Peru appealed the first instance ruling. Before the Court of Appeals, Peru

essentially argued that the Judge failed to apply Arts. 53 and 54 of the ICSID Convention and

applied instead certain provisions of the NCPCC—mainly Art. 517—which should not have

been applied. In fact, not only because the ICSID Convention has a higher hierarchy than

local norms, but because Art. 517 NCPCC establishes that the enforcement proceedings

should have been carried out according to the provisions of the applicable international treaty,

is the Award thereby exempted from going trough exequatur proceedings.

8

28. The Court of Appeals started by mentioning that this case did not involve enforcement

proceedings against Argentina but rather a claim for enforcement from a Contracting State

[Peru] against a national [CCI] from another Contracting State [Argentina]. Then, it analyzed

the provisions of Arts. 53 and 54 of the ICSID Convention expressing the binding nature of

ICSID awards arising out of them.

29. In addition, the Court of Appeals stated that ICSID awards are not technically "foreign"

awards but rather "international" awards. In this vein, the Court found that exequatur

proceedings were not required for the enforcement of the Award.

30. Then, the Court of Appeals concluded that since Peru had (i) furnished a copy of the Award

certified by ICSID’s Secretary-General—in accordance with Art. 54(2) of the ICSID—

Convention; and proven that (ii) the Award had been duly notified to CCI—in accordance

with Art. 49(1) of the ICSID Convention— the First Instance Judge had erroneously denied

the enforcement of the Award. Therefore, the ruling should be reversed.

31. Irrespective of the above, the Court of Appeals made some interesting remarks as to the

control that may be (and should be) exercised by local courts while enforcing ICSID awards.

In this sense, it noted that every judge should proceed carefully and cautiously while

exercising its jurisdiction in order to identify possible violations to Argentine public policy,

especially when it comes to issues of due process, which forms part of Argentine international

public policy.

32. Therefore, Argentine courts must guarantee that any decision issued by international tribunals,

which are potentially enforceable in Argentina, respects those principles. In order to sustain

its affirmations, the Court relied on two recent Supreme Court precedents, the "Chevron"7 and

"Claren Corporation"8 cases.

5. Analysis of the ruling by the Court of Appeals

33. Firstly, it is interesting that the Court of Appeals has decided to distinguish and categorize the

Award as "international" rather than "foreign", This goes in line with a common interpretation

7 ”A.S.M. c/ Chevron Corporation”, Supreme Court decision issued on 4/6/13.

8 “Claren Corporation c/ Estado Nacional –arts. 517/518 CPCC exequátur- s/varios”, Supreme Court decision

issued on 6/3/14.

9

made by the leading authorities9 and case-law,

10 which consider that ICSID proceedings are

delocalized, i.e., they have no legal seat. Thus, the proper view to construe Arts. 62 and 63 is

as them referring to the venue for conducting the hearings (geographical concept) as opposed

to the seat of the arbitration (legal concept).

34. This is supported by the fact that ICSID arbitrations would not have a national lex arbitri

applied to the proceedings because the lex arbitri is the ICSID Convention itself.11

Thus, the

rules of law pursuant to which the arbitration is conducted are supplied by the Convention as

interpreted under principles of public international law.12

35. In this sense, one of the main consequences of acknowledging that ICSID awards are

international and not foreign is that it may be argued that they are not enforced

"horizontally"—from the State in which they were rendered towards the State in which they

will be enforced—13

but rather "vertically,"14

from an international legal entity [a tribunal

acting under the ICSID Centre]15

towards a Contracting State of the ICSID Convention.16

36. Secondly, it is worth noting that the Court of Appeals did not hesitate to consider that the

enforcement of the Award did not need to undergo through exequatur proceedings and should

9 C. SCHREUER, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Second Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2009, Art.

62, pag. 1244, ¶3.

10 Electrabel, S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID case N° ARB/07/19), Decision on jurisdiction, applicable law an liability

issued on November 30, 2012, ¶4.199, available at http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-

documents/italaw1071clean.pdf; Noble Energy, Inc. y Machalapower Cía. Ltda. c. República del Ecuador y

Consejo Nacional de Electricidad (ICSID case Nº ARB/05/12), Decision on jurisdiction issued March 5, 2008

available at http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0564.pdf.

11

J. A. RUEDA GARCÍA, Primera Ejecución Forzosa Conocida de un Laudo Arbitral CIADI en España (Victor

Pey Casado y Fundación Presidente Allende c. República de Chile): sin Exequátur, published in Cuadernos de

Derecho Transnacional, March, 2014, Vol. 6, N° 1, pag. 420, ¶22, available at: http://e-

revistas.uc3m.es/index.php/CDT/article/view/1927.

12 C. MCLACHLAN, L. SHORE AND M. WEINIGER, International Investment Arbitration. Substantive Principles,

Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 55, ¶3.34.

13 As would be the case for other arbitral awards where the New York Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards would apply.

14 J. A. RUEDA GARCÍA, op. cit., pag. 421, ¶22(b).

15 According to Art. 18 of the ICSID Convention: "[t]he Centre shall have full international legal personality.

The legal capacity of the Centre shall include the capacity: (a) to contract; (b) to acquire and dispose of

movable and immovable property; (c) to institute legal proceedings."

16 A different approach would probably be necessary if the award were to be enforced in a non-ICSID

contracting State.

10

be directly enforced as if it were a final judgment of one of its own courts; recognizing

therefore the self-contained enforcement mechanism prescribed by the ICSID Convention.17

Had the Court of Appeals not done so, it could be argued that Argentina could have been

potentially liable for the breach of an international obligation.

37. Thirdly, the Court of Appeals felt the need to stress the fact that Argentina was not a party to

the arbitration proceedings. Irrespective of that, Argentina was certainly compelled to enforce

the Award in accordance with its international obligations. In this sense, while Art. 53 of the

ICSID Convention imposes the obligation to comply with awards on the parties to the dispute

[Peru and the Claimants], Art. 54 imposes the obligation on Contracting States to recognize

its binding nature while enforcing them [any Contracting State in which Peru tries to enforce

the Award].

38. In this case, while the Claimants were compelled to pay Peru as prescribed in the Award—by

way of Art. 53— Argentina was compelled to recognize the binding nature of the Award, not

because it was a party to the arbitration but because it is a Contracting State of the ICSID

Convention. Therefore, under Art. 54 "[e]ach Contracting State" is compelled to enforce any

"pecuniary obligations imposed" by the Award as if it were a final judgment issued by one of

its courts.

39. Lastly, we cannot ignore the fact that the Court of Appeals, albeit obiter dicta, stressed the

fact that any Argentine court enforcing ICSID awards has the power and the duty to ensure

that such awards do not violate Argentine public policy.18

Although this view has been

heavily criticized by several scholars19

and tribunals,20

the Court of Appeals' view is also

17 Arguably, a different approach could be taken if, for example, foreign investors attempt to enforce other

arbitral awards in Argentina that were not conducted under ICSID Rules. For example, BG Group Plc. V.

Argentina was an arbitration conducted in Washington DC under the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration.

18 As it would certainly be the case if an arbitration award is trying to be enforced under the New York

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

19 C. SCHREUER, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Second Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2009, Art.

54, pag. 1124, ¶24, pag. 1136, ¶73, 1140, ¶83-85

20 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No.

ARB/97/3), Annulment Proceeding, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of

Enforcement of the Award rendered on 20 August 2007 (Rule 54 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules), issued on

November 4, 2008, available at: http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0217.pdf.

11

shared by other authorities21

and it has been the subject of debate in several ICSID cases

against Argentina.22

E. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS

40. In light of the impact that this decision may have on future attempts of enforcement of ICSID

award against Argentina, the Court of Appeals' decision becomes highly relevant. However,

its relevance may be somehow limited by the fact that Argentina was not the party against

whom the Award was trying to be enforced.

41. Argentina adopts the view that while ICSID awards are binding, any party attempting to

benefit from them must commence enforcement proceedings in court. This is so because

according to Argentina's view: (i) Art. 53 does not establish an obligation of voluntary

payment;23

and (ii) under Article 54, not only must award creditors commence enforcement

proceedings to collect payments but must also meet all the formal requirements that anyone

should follow to obtain compliance with a final judgment of a local court against the State.24

42. In this sense, Argentina has a different internal mechanism for enforcement of judgments

against private parties as opposed to enforcement against the State, such as the planning of

annual budgets considerations.25

Therefore, since the ICSID Convention states that

21 H. ROSATTI, Los tratados bilaterales de inversión, el arbitraje internacional obligatorio y el sistema

constitucional Argentino, Ed. La Ley, October 15, 2003, available at:

http://www.cepal.org/drni/noticias/noticias/7/13167/12.pdf; C. ALFARO AND P. LORENTI, Argentina: The

Enforcement Process Of The ICSID Awards: Procedural Issues And Domestic Public Policy, June 1, 2005,

published in mondaq.com.

22 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/OllS), Annulment

Proceeding, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award

(Rule 54 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules), issued on September 1, 2006, ¶¶41-50, available at

http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0186_0.pdf; Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine

Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Annulment Proceeding, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request

for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Rule 54 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules), issued on

December 28, 2007, available at: http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0063.pdf.

23 Enron Corporation Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3), Annulment

Proceeding, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award

(Rule 54 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules), issued on October 7, 2008, ¶15, available at:

http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0296.pdf.

24 Ibidem.

25 See Ley 23.982, art. 22; Ley 24.624, arts. 19-20; Ley 11.672 Complementaria Permanente de Presupuesto,

arts. 168, 170. Cfr. Ley 23.892, art. 22; and Supreme Court decisions, Fallos 321:3384 (1998), “La Austral Cía.

de Seguros S.A. c/ LADE”; Fallos 322:2132 (1999), “Giovagnoli c/ Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguro”.

12

enforcement of awards should be treated as local judgments, ICSID awards against Argentina

should be treated as local judgments against the State.

43. Notwithstanding the above, Argentina has reached several agreements with foreign investors

regarding the payment of ICSID awards.26

This has helped remove certain commercial

restrictions imposed to Argentina by, for example, the United States27

who used these

sanctions to force Argentina to comply with awards rendered in favor of American investors.

44. This case also raises another interesting issue related to which the "competent court or

authority" would be for the enforcement of ICSID awards in Argentina. According to sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Art. 54 of the ICSID Convention, each Contracting State shall

designate and notify the Secretary-General of the designation of the internal competent court

or other authority for the purposes of enforcement of ICSID awards.

45. According to ICSID, "[t]he following courts and other authorities have been designated by

Contracting States as competent for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards

rendered pursuant to the Convention […] Argentina - Justicia Nacional en lo Contencioso

Administrativo Federal (the proceeding to be initiated before the Cámara Nacional de

Apelaciones en lo Contencioso Administrativo Federal)".28

46. Despite the fact that not all of the Contracting States have designated a competent court or

other authority,29

in those cases where States have done so, it appears that those courts would

have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce ICSID awards. Therefore, this raises the question of

whether the Judge and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction at all to hear this case because

26

See for example, agreement between Argentina and (i) CMS Gas Transmission Company; (ii) Continental

Casualty Company; (iii) Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. y Vivendi Universal S.A; (iv) Azurix Corp;

and (v) National Grid P.L.C, dated October 8, 2013, enacted by Resolution N° 598/2013, available at:

http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/220000-224999/221161/norma.htm.

27 On March 26, 2012, the Obama Administration announced that Argentina’s Generalized System of

Preferences beneficiary designation would be suspended “because it has not acted in good faith in enforcing

arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens.”

28 ICSID Report on Contracting States and Measures Taken by them for the Purpose of the Convention, issued

in May 2015, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/icsiddocs/Documents/ICSID%208-

Contracting%20States%20and%20Measures%20Taken%20by%20Them%20for%20the%20Purpose%20of%20t

he%20Convention.pdf

29 As to date, 74 Contracting States have done so.

13

Argentina has designated a specific—and different—internal forum for the enforcement of

ICSID awards.

47. All in all, even though this case may serve as a valuable precedent for foreign investors

attempting to enforce ICSID awards against Argentina, we must underscore the fact that

Argentina was not the party against whom the Award was being enforced. Therefore, one

cannot rule out the possibility that Argentine Courts may not follow the Court of Appeals'

decision and adopt a wholly different approach when being faced with the potential

enforcement of ICSID awards, which often involve multimillion sums, against their own

State.