Author: Alexey Vyalkov
Keywords: Arctic Sunrise; custom; damades; Diallo; equity
This article discusses the trends in the use of equity by international courts and tribunals at the stage of assessing pecuniary damages under the standards of customary international law. The research presented in the article is based on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, regional human rights courts, the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Annex VII arbitral tribunals, investment arbitration tribunals, and other bodies. The analysis made in the article clarifies the circumstances in which tribunals deem it acceptable to refer to equity at the stage of evaluating damages under custom, the effect that equity may have on the assessment of damages as a matter of law, and the reasons why the use of equity by tribunals may be reconcilable with the scope of their jurisdiction to assess damages on the basis of international law. After discussing these matters, the article takes issue with the Diallo and the Arctic Sunrise, which are the two recent cases in which the tribunals employed an equitable assessment of pecuniary damages. The article argues that the tribunals in these cases awarded pecuniary damages in excess of jurisdiction and provided a reasoning that may bring arbitrariness into the calculation of damages under the standards of customary international law. As a matter of legal principle, Diallo and the Arctic Sunrise have opened the doors for awarding pecuniary damages in the amounts assessed on the basis of mere speculation and with no regard to any evidence whatsoever. Once Diallo and the Arctic Sunrise detonate in international dispute settlement, they will complicate the process of assessing pecuniary damages flowing from internationally wrongful acts. The general conclusion drawn at the end is that in international jurisprudence certain consistent trends in applying equity to the assessment of damages under custom have emerged. However, Diallo and the Arctic Sunrise – rendered in excess of authority – have undermined these trends and brought developments that are potentially dangerous for international law.
About the author: Alexey Vyalkov – Magister Juris (University of Oxford, the United Kingdom), practitioner, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Vyalkov A. (2018) Rol' printsipa spravedlivosti pri otsenke ubytkov po mezhdunarodnomy obychayu: kuda delo Diallo i delo sudna “Arktik Sanrayz” vedut sostoyanie prava? [The role of equity in the assessment of damages under custom: where are Diallo and the Arctic Sunrise taking the law?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.4, pp.59–82. (In Russian).
Akehurst M. (1976) Equity and General Principles of Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.25, no.4, pp.801–825.
Amerasinghe Ch. (2005) Evidence in International Litigation, Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff.Blake C. (2012) Moral Damages in Investment Arbitration: A Role for Human Rights? Journal of International Dispute Settlements, vol.3, no.2, pp.371–407.
Brown Ch. (2007) A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cheng B. (1955) Justice and Equity in International Law. Current Law Problems, vol.8, no.1, pp.185–211.
Cheng B. (2006) General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford J. (2013) State Responsibility: The General Part, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D’Aspremont J. (2017) International Court of Justice and the Irony of System-Design. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.8, no.2, pp.366–387.
Elrifai S.N. (2017) Equity-based Discretion and the Anatomy of Damages Assessment in International Investment Law. Journal of International Arbitration, vol.34, no.5, pp.835–888.
Francioni F. Equity in International Law. In: Wolfrum R. (ed.). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp.632–641.
Gourgourinis A. (2009) Delineating the Normativity of Equity in International Law. International Common Law Review, vol.11, no.3, pp.327–347.
Gray Ch. (1990) Judicial Remedies in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelsen H. (1949) General Theory of Law and State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kriebaum U. (2009) Is the European Court of Human Rights an Alternative to Investor-State Arbitration? In: Dupuy P.-M., Francioni F., Petersmann E.U. (eds.) Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.219–245.
Lapidoth R. (1987) Equity in International Law. Israel Law Review, vol.22, no.2, pp.161–183.
Lauterpacht E. (1977–1978) Equity, Evasion, Equivocation and Evolution in International Law. Proceedings of the American Branch of the International Law Association, pp.33–47.
Lauterpacht E. (1990) Issues of Compensation and Nationality in the Taking of Energy Investments. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, vol.8, pp.241–250.
Lauterpacht E. (2011) Principles of Procedure in International Litigation. Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International, vol.345, pp.387–530.
Lowe V. (1989) The Role of Equity in International Law. Australian Year Book of International Law, vol.12, pp.54–81.
Marboe I. (2009) Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pellet A. (2006) Article 38. In: Zimmermann A., Tomuschat C., Oellers-Frahm K. (eds.). The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.677–792.
Ripinsky S. (2009) Assessing Damages in Investment Disputes: Practice in Search of Perfect. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol.10, no.1, pp.5–37.
Schreuer Ch. (2009) The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wildhaber L. (2003) Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Just Satisfaction under the European Convention on Human Rights. Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online, vol.3, no.1, pp.1–18.
Zarbiyev F. (2013) Judicial Activism in International Law – A Conceptual Framework for Analysis. Journal ofInternational Dispute Settlement, vol.3, no.2, pp.247–278.